WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 24TH.

Mr. Justice Burton was absent from indisposition.

JAMES HEALY examined by the ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

I am a Sub-Constable in the Constabulary. I was at the meeting at Mullaghmast, which took place on the 1st of October. I went to the meeting early that day. I remained there during the day and part of the night. I am stationed at Cork, and I went from Cork there. I think there were about 250,000 at that meeting. I was on the central part of the field, and I was along the road when the procession was coming up. The crowd which came before Mr. O'Con nell came up in a very boisterous manner; shouting, screeching, and driving all before them. Those that came with him were very regular. Those that were hurraing and screeching arrived, I think, from Carlow and Kilkenny at an earlier hour than Mr. O'Connell. The people came from all directions. The principal part came through "the long avenue." I saw a number of bands; I think about thirty. Some were dressed in uniform resembling the hussars and lancers. I saw several documents circulated amongst the people. I saw the document now handed to me. This document was purchased by another person. I bought a similar one myself. The price, I believe, is only a halfpenny, but I paid a penny for it. I should think several thousands of these were purchased by the crowd. I heard nothing said when they were purchased. I tore up the one I bought myself. A Sub-Inspector of Police purchased the other. His name is John Donovan. I think the several thousand documents, of which I spoke, were the same as that which I bought. There were persons disposing of the documents from an early hour in the morning till nightfall. I saw Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Steele at the meeting. They arrived, I think, between two and three o'clock. I saw a great many persons with labels upon their hats, bearing the inscription "O'Connell's police." They had pieces of timber in their hands, five or six feet long. They were quite small, like wands. I saw flags and banners at the meeting. There was one with the words No Saxon Threats, No Irish Slaves, No Compromise but Repeal. These inscriptions were upon a flag belonging, I believe, to the Castle comer colliers. I do not know whether they were the Castlecomer colliers, but I heard persons say they were. Upon another flag were the words, Border Men, greet O'Connell, Cead mille failtha. Upon several others were the words, Repeal, and We tread the Land that bore us. Near the platform was a banner with the words, The Queen, O'Connell, and Repeal. On another was the inscription, Ireland dragged at the Tail of another Nation. I observed one attached to a private carriage with the words, Repeal and no Separation. On another, near the pavilion, were the words, Fixity of Tenure, the Farmer's Right. On another, Mullaghmast and its Martyrs-a Voice from the Grave. On another was a dog, with a harp and something which I cannot describe before it. I saw the words, No Saxon Butchery shall give

Blood-gouts for a Repast; the Dog is roused, and Treachery expelled from Mullaghmast. I think the words God save the Queen, or The Queen, God bless her, were underneath. The platform was occupied about two hours, but the meeting did not then separate. Some remained until morning. I heard no observations amongst the people, except shouting for Repeal and old Ireland, and words to that effect.

Cross-examined by MR. MACDONAGH.

I heard no expressions amongst the crowd except those which I have mentioned. I went amongst the crowd very much that day in the discharge of my duty, and minutely examined what was going on. I listened attentively to every thing.

You mingled with the groups of people? Yes.

And listened to what they were saying? Yes, to anything I

could catch.

And all you did catch was "Repeal and old Ireland," although you were there during the meeting, and from eight o'clock until the next morning? I was there from the evening before the meeting to eleven o'clock at night, after the meeting.

I presume you were sent from Cork to the meeting because you were a stranger? I do not know; it may have been the reason.

Was it not a very peaceable assemblage? Yes, so far as I have seen there was no riot or breach of the peace from morning until night; all was very quiet in that respect.

And you answer me in the affirmative that there was no riot throughout the day? There was nothing except shouting for Repeal. When you told the Attorney-General that parties remained there that night, you meant, I presume, at the banquet; they were enjoying themselves in the tents, I presume? Yes.

In peace and quiet?

As far as I saw.

Were not the bands which arrived from Carlow and Kilkenny, temperance bands? I think they were.

You have come from the south of Ireland; now have you seen any of the processions of Father Matthew? Yes, a great many of them. And temperance bands were at those processions? Yes.

How many bands have you seen at a time in his processions? I have seen more bands than I saw at Mullaghmast.

How many have you seen at a time? Ihave seen forty-five at a time. When did you see them? On the day of the Cork temperance procession.

How many thousand people were in that procession? I cannot exactly say; I should think about 300,000.

Did the temperance bands wear uniform? Some did.

Had they flags and banners? Some had; very small ones; I cannot call them flags.

I presume there were inscriptions upon them? Oh! yes, all connected with the temperance movement, as I believe.

I presume those processions are common in the south of Ireland? Very common.

How long have you been in the constabulary? Twelve years.

Have the people improved in their habits in consequence of the temperance movement? Very much so; I think there is a great improvement in point of drunkenness.

Describe how the bands came from Carlow and Kilkenny; I suppose they were in great joy? They appeared to be very wild. They drove all before them. They were led by persons who appeared to station them in different parts of the field.

Were you one of the persons who were driven before the people? I got a little crushing.

There was nothing bad in it though?

No.

Did they injure anybody? Not that I could learn, except knocking down a gingerbread stand. They were selling them for profit. They were not giving them for nothing amongst the people. There were many persons selling gingerbread, grog, coffee, and things of that description. I do not know any of the persons who were selling those things. I did not observe a single one of the ballads given for nothing. In large assemblages I have frequently seen persons hawking about and selling ballads, and I suppose they took advantage of this large assemblage to do so. I saw the persons at the meeting every place where they could make sale of these ballads.

Have you not even seen persons selling such ballads at the Assizes, when the Judges were sitting in the Crown Court and in the Civil Court? I have seen persons going about at the Assizes singing ballads.

Now, with respect to those men who had papers in their hats with "O'Connell's Police" on them, did not you see them preserving peace and good order at the meeting? I saw them exerting themselves, but not in the way police would.

Did not you see them keep the platform clear and preserve order? I believe that was their intention. Heard instructions given to them by a person named Walsh, to keep order and quietness about the platform and pavilion. Some of them did not comply with that order. The wands I saw were peeled, smoothed, and slight. I will say that they were pieces of timber.

Mr. Moore. My Lords, I submit that the evidence of the last Witness, as regards the ballads, ought not to be received. His evidence, as I understand it, is this: "That there were persons selling, "and distributing ballads in the course of the meeting, that he him"self purchased one, which he lost, but that he got the document he "produced from another policeman, who put a mark upon it." I do not know whether the Witness went the length of saying he saw the other policeman buy that document. It would be evidence I acknowledge, if he saw the other policeman buy it from the person who was selling it; but seeing him mark a document which he did not see him buy at the meeting from the person selling it, that I apprehend is not admissible in evidence.

The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE. That is not the entire of his evidence.

Mr. Macdonagh. My Lords, I submit that upon the evidence given, this document is not receivable in evidence. A very great

latitude is to be allowed in cases of conspiracy, when it is clearly to be inferred that an act was to be done in furtherance of the common object of the conspirators; but where it has been proved, that in this vast assemblage, persons hovered about, or mingled amongst groups of persons for the purpose of selling ballads, as was the habitual custom in the country to take advantage of large assemblies for the purpose of selling those ballads, and that those ballads were not distributed gratuitously, but sold for profit, just as any other thing at the meeting, it would be unjust in the highest degree to permit that species of evidence to be received against the traversers. Besides there was not the remotest proof given of any connexion between those persons speaking on the platform, the traversers, the Association, or any member of that body, and the persons distributing those ballads. Mr. Brown, the authorized printer of the Association, had been examined, and this document is not shown to have been printed by him. I admit Mr. O'Connell, or any other of the traversers, would be responsible. for any thing done at the meeting in furtherance of their common purpose, with their knowledge; but it is not every collateral declaration, even of conspirators, that can be made evidence. This is no part of the res gesta. Would it not be monstrous to hold, that if at one of Father Mathew's Temperance meetings, a ballad of this description was sold, that he should be held responsible for it? If this were allowed, it would be in the power of any ill-designing person to convert a perfectly legal assembly into an illegal one.

The Attorney General.-In the case of The King v. Hardy, 24 State Trials, it was decided that the Court has a right to look into a document offered in evidence, with a view to its admissibility or not. Now how does the evidence stand before the Court? You have it proved that Mr. O'Connell said he chose that place (the Rath of Mullaghmast) for an obvious reason, that they were on the precise spot in which English treachery, and false Irish treachery too, consummated a massacre unequalled in crime in the history of the world, until the massacre of the Mamelukes by Mehemet Ali. It was necessary to have Turks to commit crime in order to be equal to the crime of the English; no other people but the Turks were wicked enough, except the English. He said that was a fit place, in the open air, to assert their determination not to be destroyed by treachery; and that while he lived they never should. That the meeting was not held there by accident, but by design, and that where his voice was then raised, the yell of despair was once heard from the victims who had fallen beneath the swords of the Saxons, who delightedly ground their victims to death. That three hundred unarmed men were slaughtered in the merriment of the banquet, leaving their wives and children to drop useless tears over them. This is what was stated by Mr. O'Connell at that very meeting where he could not be heard by the 250,000 persons present. At that meeting there was the motto: No more shall Saxon Butchery give Blood-gout to the Repast, the Dog is roused, and Treachery expelled from Mullaghmast. You may understand from this the purpose I have in having this document read in evidence.

It was

impossible that this language could be heard by so large a multitude; and this document was circulated among those who could not hear what had been said. It is said it is not admissible because it was sold; but that is no reason that it should not be admitted as evidence to show the character of the meeting, and to show the concurrence of the parties in the object they had in view. Nothing could be more important than this, to show the view with which those persons were assembled together to excite discontent and disaffection among them to the English. It will be for the jury to say how far the tra versers were privy to, or connected with this document; but I submit that the Court are entitled to look into it, for the purpose of seeing the object that the parties had in view.

Mr. Monahan. My Lords, on the part of Mr. John O'Connell, I submit that this document ought not be received in evidence. The Attorney-General has stated that he knows who the printer of that document was; but he has not produced him to show for what purpose, or for what object it was offered for sale. There is no evidence that it was exhibited in the presence of the traversers, or that they had any knowledge that it ever existed; and it is clear, to make it evidence, it should be brought home to have been the act of the parties taking part in the proceedings of that meeting, or that it was done with their sanction or knowledge, or that they recog nized or adopted it. I did not object to the placards being given in evidence, because they were openly and publicly exhibited at the meeting.

The Solicitor-General.-My Lords, I submit that this should be received in evidence, leaving it open to the traversers to give an explanation of it if they can. It is admissible, as showing the character of the meeting, the transactions that took place, and, among others, the circulation of this paper, which bears upon the charge contained in the indictment; that is, that the traversers entered into a conspiracy for the purpose of exciting animosity and ill-will amongst different classes of her Majesty's subjects. We have shown that this meeting was convened by the direction of some of the traversers, and this document is evidence to show the intention of that meeting. It is immaterial whether it was sold or not, it is part and parcel of the res gesta at that meeting, and shows its character. It is not necessary to show any authority emanating from the Association for the printing or publishing of the document; if they call a meeting they are responsible for what takes place at that meeting; but if necessary to prove an authority for its circulation, is there not primâ facie evidence from the document, which is uncontradicted, for it bears upon it the professed object for which the meeting was convened. Here is a document circulated through a multitude of persons, consisting some of" O'Connell's Police," and a large number of them connected with the conspiracy, and is it to be believed that it did not come to the knowledge of the traversers, and that there is not primâ fucie evidence of that? But it is said we should have proved that this was printed by the autho rity of the Association; that was not necessary to prove, as this was given in evidence as part of the res gesta. If they had circulated