your hand correspond with the report which you furnished?" surely that is tantamount to an inquiry as to the contents of the paper.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-You had better put the question again, Mr. Fitzgibbon.

Mr. Fitzgibbon. Did you copy your report from the book in your hand? In the first instance I made out my report from the notes which I took on the day of the meeting, and then I copied what I have in my book from my report. I copied the report which is in this book from the report which I sent into my officer.

Did you copy the book from the report before you sent in the report? Yes.

Are you sure now? Indeed I think I am. I have explained to you how it was. I took a report from my original notes, and sent it off, and a copy of that report I brought to my station.

What became of that copy? I do not know what has become of it. I dare say it is at home. I am sure I do not know; stay, stay, I believe I have it here—yes, here it is. This is the report which I took from my original notes.

Well, read it through and tell me do you find in it anything about "Devil's cure to Saunders ? No, there is nothing about it here.

Mr. Fitzgibbon. Why, Sir, you do not think it worth your while to look through your notes for it? Oh, I know it is not in it.

Where were you when you made out your report ? In a house in Baltinglass.

Who owns that house? I forget the man's name.

You forget his name? Yes, I do-all I know is, that he is a carpenter.

He keeps a lodging-house-does he not? Yes, he does.

And you lodged in his house, and have been for ten or eleven years in Baltinglass, and yet notwithstanding all this, you forget his name? I do not remember it. I never lodged in his house but

once.

Your memory must, indeed, be very treacherous, and yet you can remember what Mr. O'Connell said that day! Passin gstrange that! I think I may let you go down, Sir.

Witness. My Lords, I never was stationed at Baltinglass for more than a fortnight, and there are numbers of people there whom I do not know.

HENRY TWISS Sworn, and examined by Mr. MARTley.

I am a Sub-Constable, and was so in the month of August last; I was stationed at that time at Redcross in the county of Wicklow, which is thirty miles distant from Baltinglass; I was at Baltinglass on the 6th of August last; there was a Repeal meeting there that day; I arrived at Baltinglass the evening before; I went there on duty; I made a report to my officer of what I saw there; I sent in my report on the morning of the next day; this document now handed to me is the report, and was written by me; there was a great crowd at the meeting; I am not at all in the habit of estimat

ing numbers, but I am sure there were, at all events, 5000 persons at the Baltinglass meeting; I am confident that I am greatly under the mark; I saw Mr. O'Connell there, and others whom I do not know; the chair was at one time occupied by a gentleman named Copeland, from near Dunlavin; another gentleman was subsequently called to the chair; the second Chairman was some person from Kilcullen Bridge; I was at the meeting about one o'clock; I mixed in the crowd; I was ordered to attend the meeting in plain clothes, and I did so; I saw people coming from various directions, some came from Carlow, others from Tullow; I was on the platform at one time, at another time I was within five yards of it; I heard people in the crowd make various political observations; I heard some people saying, "Ireland was trampled on, but she shall be so no "longer." "The time is nearer than you think. Let us wait patiently for some months. Ireland was trampled on long enough, "but she shall be so no longer;" the meeting lasted as well as I remember from about half-past two to six o'clock; I was shewn Mr. Steele there that day; I saw the Rev. Mr. Murtagh there; he made a speech; I cannot state what he said, as I made no report of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. MACDONAGH.

I took no notes of what was said by the speakers.

I presume that when you heard the people say, "the time is nearer than you think," they were speaking of the Repeal of the Union? I could not say; but you may suppose so if you like.

You are not able to ascribe any other meaning to it; but the Repeal of the Union was the subject they were discussing? It was. Did you see all the people retire? I cannot say I saw them all retire, but I saw them going away in every direction. There was no breach of the peace at that meeting? Not that I could see.

And no tendency to a breach of the peace? No; not the slightest.

Everything went off very peaceably? It did.

PATRICK LENEHAN sworn, and examined by MR. TOMB.

I am a Police Constable. I was at Baltinglass on the 6th of August last. I saw the people coming into the town to meet Mr. O'Connell. I cannot say how many, but there were some thousands there. I saw them going over the bridge of Baltinglass on the Dublin road. I was at the meeting when Mr. O'Connell came there. I was in plain clothes. I was about thirty yards from the platform. I saw Father Lawlor of Baltinglass there, and Mr. Steele, and the Rev. Mr. Murtagh, of Kilcullen. I heard Mr. O'Connell tell the people that he was glad to see them there, and that he hoped they would be there when he came again; they all shouted at that. After the meeting was over I went across the bridge towards Baltinglass, in the direction of the barracks. The place was very much thronged. I heard some of the people saying

Mr. Moore. Does your Lordship think this is evidence to affect the traversers; what was said or done by the people after the meeting had taken place, and whether that can give a character to the meeting.

Mr. Tomb.-I submit that the effect produced by the meeting is evidence.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-The objection may be premature; but I think we cannot exclude the evidence.

Witness.-I was obliged to stop on the bridge, it was so crammed, and there was such a lot of people there. One of them said "The Repeal is certain now; we must get it." Another said, "If we do not get it quietly we will fight for it." Another said, "We will turn out to a man and fight for Repeal."

Mr. Moore. Do your Lordships consider the traversers ought to be affected by expressions that any individuals think fit to use after the meeting has separated. See how dangerous the effect of such a line of examination might be. Your Lordships have lately ruled, that if persons in coming to a meeting conduct themselves in a particular way, and thereby give a character to the meeting, that would be admissible; but it would be going a very dangerous length to allow the traversers to be affected by conversation between individuals, when going home from a meeting. No man could possibly be safe if such a doctrine as that was held.

Mr. Hatchell.-A party might be affected by what took place at a meeting where he was present, and from which he had the option of withdrawing if he pleased, and not giving by his presence his sanction to the proceedings. But suppose everything to have been fair, legal, and tranquil at a meeting, and when it separates, his connexion with it ceases, when it is impossible for him to set matters right, or to be answerable for the conduct or misconduct, the language or declarations of those parties, or of parties who may not have been at that meeting at all, although coming from the direction of it, it would be surely inconsistent that a man should be affected in character, property, liberty, or perhaps in life, by the conversations of persons over whom he had no control.

Mr. Tomb.-Perhaps I might be permitted to ask the Witness a question or two, as to the distance of the place, where he heard these expressions, from the place of meeting.

How far is the bridge of Baltinglass from the place where the meeting was? I think it was about half-a-mile.

How long after the proceedings at the meeting was it you heard these expressions? It was not an hour.

Were the people going home from the meeting at the time? They were going off in every direction.

Mr. Tomb.-I respectfully submit that this is a proper question to be asked, and that the evidence as to what the Witness heard the people say on the bridge is admissible, on the grounds that it tends to shew what the nature of the meeting was, and the effect likely to be produced by the language used. The people who used the ex

pressions sworn to by the witness, appear to have been part of the crowd that met at that meeting and listened to what was said.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-Was it in a house you heard those words?

Witness. No, on the bridge.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON.-I thought you went into a house.

Mr. Tomb.-No, my Lord, he said the bridge. The evidence of the witness is admissible, inasmuch as it characterizes that meeting. I am not aware that there is any express or direct authority upon this point; but in the case of the Manchester riots, it was ruled that the persons, who seemed to have attended a meeting, showed the nature of that meeting.

Mr. Moore. In the absence of authority, the Court must look to the principles of common sense and common justice. Is every individual who has attended a meeting to be made responsible for every thing which may be said, an hour after the meeting, by persons who may act illegally or make use of illegal expressions? That is inconsistent alike with common sense and with common justice.

The Attorney-General.-My Lords, I conceive that it is inconsistent neither with common sense nor with common justice to receive this evidence. On the contrary, it would be inconsistent with common sense and common justice not to make the parties accountable for what was said and done after the meeting. In the case of Redford v. Birly the expressions used by persons going to the meeting were admitted by Mr. Justice Holroyd, and his decision was affirmed by the Court of King's Bench, on a motion for a new trial, as showing the character of the meeting. In that case, on the part of the defendant, it was proposed to examine a Mr. Andrews, who stated that he resided within two miles of Manchester, on the road from Manchester to Whitecross. The counsel for the defendant were proceeding to examine him as to the fact of his having seen bodies of men in the night of the 14th of August marching along the road near his house, and as to expressions used by them. It was objected that those facts were not admissible in evidence, unless it was shown that the plaintiff was one of the party. Mr. Justice Holroyd said that he was clearly of opinion that the evidence proposed was admissible as to part of the facts in issue. One of the issues was, whether a certain unlawful, wicked, and seditious conspiracy had not been entered into, to excite discontent and disaffection in the minds of the people, and hatred and contempt of the Government and constitution, &c., therefore the transactions which occurred in Manchester and the neighbourhood were clearly admissible evidence, which he was bound to hear when adduced for the purpose of proving that such a conspiracy did exist. What was said by a person leaving a meeting shows the character of it, just as much as what was said going to a meeting. We have in evidence the remarkable expression of Mr. O'Connell," If I want you won't you come again?" We have also in evidence the language used by persons who attended the meeting, that they were ready to turn out to a man and fight for Repeal if neces

sary. The question for the jury is, how was that language understood? Common sense shows that the best way of proving that, is by the expressions of parties leaving the meeting, rather than by the expressions which were used before the meeting. At the time this conversation took place the meeting was not over: the people were dispersing. It is, therefore, part of the res gesta at the meeting. In Regina v. Dammanie, 15 Howell's St. Tr., 553, evidence of the expressions used by the mob who accompanied Dr. Sacheverell to the Temple was admitted. Nothing can be more important to show how the people understood the language of the speakers than the conversation of persons leaving the meeting. Suppose some of the parties had pulled down Mr. Saunders's house as they were returning from the meeting, that might be given in evidence against every one who took part in the meeting, and they would be responsible for it.

Mr. Whiteside. The case cited by the Attorney General makes for us. In that case, expressions of the mob who accompanied Dr. Sacheverell to the Temple were admitted; but it is not stated that those expressions were used after the meeting. Here are two men who are nearly half a mile from the place, after the meeting took place. If that can be given in evidence, the acts of the parties the next day may be admitted. In Lord George Gordon's case, the expressions were used by the mob, when they were pulling down a house.

The Attorney General.-In page 553, you will find that it was the mob who accompanied Dr. Sacheverell home to the Temple, who used the expressions; that must have been after the meeting. We rely on this evidence as part of the res gesta.

Mr. JUSTICE CRAMPTON. The evidenee in Daniel Dammanie's case was, that the mob accompanied Dr. Sacheverell to the Temple, but it does not say that they did so after the meeting. That is a very important fact.

Mr. JUSTICE PERRIN. It would be a very different thing if the shouts were made by the whole body, but this is a conversation between two men who were apparently connected with the meeting.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-Let it be ascertained whether these persons were at the meeting.

Mr. Tomb.-Where were the men? On the bridge when I came up. I cannot swear that they formed a portion of the people who were at the meeting.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-The Crown must withdraw the evidence; and if the Jury have taken a note of it, they must strike it out.

Cross-examined by MR. MOORE.

I came from Holywood, about fourteen miles from Baltinglass, the night before. Captain Drought is the Stipendiary Magistrate of that district. He was at Baltinglass the day before. I knew of the meeting before, as it was quite notorious. I heard of it for about three weeks before that time. It was quite notorious in all the district, and we all knew it was a meeting for the Repeal of the Union. All was quiet at the meeting. There was perfect peace, no acts of