Mr. Fitzgibbon-Produce the Morning Register of September 14th, 1841? I have it here; I see a speech of Mr. O'Connell's in it.

Mr. Fitzgibbon-I have no desire, my lords, to have each of the speeches read, but I am willing to have the portions which I referred to in my statement read. However, if the other side wish I have no objection to the whole of speeches being read.

Attorney General-I don't know how this paper can be made evidence at all, and therefore I object to it.

Mr. Fitzgibbon-The publicly expressed opinions of O'Connell, on the subject, is in issue, and I do not see how it can be objected to here. We have it here in one of the papers which the Attorney General alleged was authorised and circulated by the association.

Attorney General-No, no.

Mr. Fitzgibbon-Yes, yes; you said so.

Attorney General-There was no daily paper circulated by the association at all; it was only three-day a week, and weekly papers, the association circulated.

Mr. Fitzgibbon-They have given in evidence here several morning newspapers, without producing the reporter who reported the speeches read out of the same papers by the crown; now, here is one of the newspapers which contains the opinions of Mr. O'Connell on this subject, and which always published the proceedings of the association the next morning, and we want to prove this out of the papers, which are not very many.

Judge Burton-Is the paper one of those which published the proceedings, and which was read here ?

Mr. Fitzgibbon-It was not read here my lord, but is a paper which published the opinions of Mr. O'Connell; it is the Register, which has since merged into the Freeman's Journal, and

Solicitor General--The only paper we have given in evidence is one which we proved Dr. Gray to be part proprietor of, and it is quite useless to say that they can have recourse to another paper now, and say it is evidence.

Judge Crampton-If Mr. Fitzgibbon proves the speech to have been made by Mr. O'Connell, then he will admit the paper in evidence.

Solicitor General-We think there is a vast difference between this paper and that which we read in evidence.

Mr. Fitzgibbon---It is alleged here that the defendants conspired to raise disaffection, &c. in the minds of her Majesty's subjects, and

Judge Crampton-Can you show that is a speech of Mr. O'Connell's, and spoken by him as published in that paper? If you do not, you prove nothing, and in that case the paper cannot be admitted in evidence.

The Freeman of the 27th September, 1841, was then produced. Solicitor General---I object to that paper being given in evidence. We do not object to the production of any paper published in 1843; but a speech delivered by Mr. O'Connell in 1841 being called for to be read, the proper evidence is the reporter. They have not produced him, or accounted for his absence. He never before heard such a proposition, as that a newspaper was sufficient evidence of the delivery of a speech.

Mr. Fitzgibbon---The question here is, is what was published by Mr. O'Connell and Dr. Gray criminal. We offer in evidence their acts, and

we now confine ourselves to acts which occurred since the formation of the repeal association.

Mr. Justice Crampton---How do you show they are their acts?

Mr. Fitzgibbon---Dr. Gray is the proprietor. He is said to be one of those who conspired to circulate inflammatory matter. I want to show that he circulated with equal anxiety matter of a legal and peaceable tendency.

Mr. Sheil---My lords, in Horne Tooke's case matter written by him twelve years before was admitted to be read, and the paper now produced was published by Dr. Gray very lately.

Mr. Justice Crampton---That is quite a different case from the Morning Register.

Chief Justice---I think it admissible.

Solicitor General---I have sent for an authority which I will have in court in a few minutes, which I think will satisfy the court that it is not admissible.

Mr. M'Donough---At the trial of Mr. Cobbett in July, 1831, he offered in evidence a speech made by him at Salisbury. The Attorney General opposed the admission of it, but it was admitted by Lord Tenderden.

Solicitor General---My objection is that they have not proved it to be a document published by Mr. O'Connell or Dr. Gray. The act of parliament does not allow statutable proof of the publication to be sufficient in favour of the proprietor.

Mr. Justice Burton---The fact of publication by Dr. Gray ought to be proved.

Mr. Fitzgibbon (to the witness)---When did Dr. Gray become the proprietor? On the 8th February, 1841.

Solicitor General-That answer does not remove the abjection, which is, that the statutable proof of proprietorship cannot be given in favour of the proprietor. If you want to prove it in his favour, you must do it in the ordinary way. In the case to which I before alluded an action was brought against the proprietor of a newspaper for matter contained in one of its numbers. He tendered as evidence in his favour other copies of the same paper, and offered to prove the publication under the statute, but was not allowed. He did not object to the proof of the speech of 1810, as it was proved, independent of the newspaper, by a person who was present. Mr. Brewster-The case alluded to is Watts against Frazer, and it is sent for.

Mr. Whiteside-Cobbett was allowed to give, in proof, one of his Registers, without any evidence of proprietorship being given. Mr. Justice Crampton-Was it objected to ?

Mr. Whiteside-No.

Mr. Justice Perrin said the court was waiting for authority.

Mr. Sergeant Warren referred to 7 Adolphus and Ellis; after which he stated there ought to have been either a reporter or some reputable person to prove as was offered in the case of Mr. O'Connell's speech in 1810. After which discussion, as to the admissibility of the newspaper, it was ultimately handed to Mr. Vernon of the Stamp-Office.

Mr. Fitzgibbon---What date is that paper? It is dated the 5th

November 1841.

You perceive in that paper the proceedings of the association? I do. Go to the passage that is marked.

The witness then read the portion marked, and also a letter from Dr. Gray, published in the same paper.

A resolution of Mr. O'Connell, to the effect that the letter should be inserted on the minutes of the association, was then read.

Mr. Fitzgibbon then said---Have you the declaration of Dr. Gray, proprietor of the Weekly Freeman ? I have not.

It then having been proposed that the witness should read from the file of the Weekly Freeman, produced by the defendants, a speech delivered by Mr. O'Connell.

Mr. Brewster said---This is not the Stamp-Office copy that is produced. Mr. Fitzgibbon---Can any man in the world entertain a shadow of a doubt that the type is not precisely the same; and, in the name of common sense, I ask, can there be any objection to Mr. Vernon reading from the copy produced ?

Judge Crampton---Common sense ought to tell you, Mr. Fitzgibbon, that the one is evidence and the other is not.

The Attorney General not objecting, the witness proceeded to read the speech, in which Mr. O'Connell adverted to the necessity of having the franchise extended, and equal rights and privileges meted out to all parties without distinction. He also referred to what he considered the injustice of having the majority supporting the church of the minority, and expressed his opinion that the ecclesiastical revenues might be appropriated to the education of the people at large. The state of the representation was next noticed, and a comparison made between this country, England, and Wales, for the purpose of showing that Ireland was inadequately represented in the imperial parliament.

Mr. Bourne, at the request of Mr. M'Donough, read from the Pilot of the 15th of April, 1840, the plan of the National Association.

Their lordships retired for a short time.

When the Court resumed its sitting,

Mr. Bourne proceeded to read from a report published in the Pilot of Wednesday April 12th, 1843, Mr. O'Connell's speech at the Repeal Association. He also read the address of Mr. O'Connell to Mr. Robert Tyler, son of the President of America, conveying the thanks of the association to him for his speech.

Mr. M'Donough---That is all I shall trouble you to read from these two papers at present.

Sir Colman O'Loghlen said there were some documents which were proved by Brown the printer, and we intend to hand them in as read. Brown proved that those documents were printed for, and paid for by the association. The first is entitled a Series of Reports of the Loyal National Repeal Association, First and Second Series.

Chief Justice---Reports on what subject, Sir Colman ?

Sir Colman O'Loghlen---Reports on different subjects, published, circulated, and paid for by the Repeal Association.

Sergeant Warren---There is no proof of their circulation by the association.

Mr. Whiteside---Yes, there is. Brown proved they were printed and paid for by the association.

Chief Justice---We have heard no statement about them yet. Let us hear what they are?

Sir Colman O'Loghlen-The title page of this one is the First Series of the Reports of the Loyal National Repeal Aassociation of Ireland, dedicated to the people of Ireland by Daniel O'Connell, M.P.

Judge Perrin---What is the date of that document ?

The date on the title page is 1840; they are printed by Brown, for the association.

The Clerk of the Crown then proceeded to read the first Report of the Repeal Association, which was dedicated to the people of Ireland by Mr. O'Connell.

Attorney General---We assume, for the present, that the whole of that document is read.

Sir Colman O'Loghlen---Of course, we enter all as read, but at present wish to have the first passage read.

Chief Justice---Let it be entered as read, but let us see what they are about.

The Clerk of the Crown then proceeded to read the following extract from the report alluded to:--

"I dedicate these reports to you; they were written by one of yourselves for the benefit of you all; they have met the approbation of the Notional Repeal Association, and therefore, I have no hesitation in reccommending them for your perusal.

"Read them attentively; they will show these things--

"First---That the union was no compact or agreement made between parties entering into arrangement with one another; it had not any one of the features or ingredients of a contract or a bargan.

"Secondly---That the union was carried by the open employment of military force and violence, and under the rule of martial law, in the total absence of constitutional protection for life, limb, and liberty.

"Thirdly---That the most enormous and profligate bribery and corruption were also used in order to achieve that measure---bribery the most extensive and complicated, the most bare-faced and profligate, that ever disgraced the actors in any political transaction since the beginning of the world.

66

Fourthly---That the union was in its terms thoroughly unjust and oppressive to the Irish people.

66

Fifthly---That the union law refused to Ireland an adequate representation in the united parliament, and this enormous injustice was perpetrated with reckless carelessness.

"Sixthly---That the union saddled Ireland, and charged all the property of the Irish people, with no less a sum, in the first instance, than Four Hundred and Forty Millions sterling, not one shilling of which was justly, or fairly, or even in point of fact chargeable to Ireland; and such enormous injustice has since been augmented by an addition of more than Three Hundred Millions sterling, over and above the former sum.

66

Seventhly---That but for the union, Ireland would not at the present day, owe a single shilling of national debt, whereas she is at present chargeable, in common with Great Britain, with Eight Hundred Millions.

"Eighthly-That but for the union Ireland would be the least taxed country in Europe, unburthened with debt, and such would be the

condition of Ireland notwithstanding the union, if justice were done her by the imperial parliament in matters of finance."

These propositions are capable of demonstration, and I think that any man who reads the following reports will inevitably perceive their perfect truth.

"I have hitherto for some years struggled to obtain justice for Ireland from the united parliament, but I have struggled in vain.

"Fellow-countrymen, why should we not insist upon the repeal of the union statute? But I need not argue that point; every man must feel that it must be good for Ireland to govern herself, and to have her own income spent within her own bounds, and amongst her own people.

"The conviction that the union must sooner or later be repealed, has become all but universal. Ireland cannot much longer consent to be a province.

"There is in truth but one question, and that is, how is the union to be repealed?

"I do not hesitate to say, that the question appears to me of easy solution. It requires but these few things to make the repeal safe, certain, and free from difficulties.

"First---Let the agitation for repeal be kept perfectly free from sectarian dissention, and from all taint of being a struggle for sectarian ascendancy; all sects and persuasions must see that they have an equal interest in the repeal; no species of political preference can be allowed to any one over the others; the benefit of the repeal is calculated for all, and all should combine to obtain it.

"Secondly---The agitation for the repeal should be peaceable and legal ---there should be no force, no violence, no outrage---there should be no threat, no menace. In short, there should be not only no violation of the law, but no tendency to such violation. The acts of the repealers should be marked with moderation as well as with firmness. The language of the repealers should be pacific and conciliatory. In manner as well as in matter, every thing should be done to disarm hostility, and to obtain and justify confidence.

“Thirdly---It is the bounden duty of the repealers to demonstrate, that no man can suffer in goods or in person by the carrying of the repeal. The repealers must constantly show forth the obvious truth, that no man's property will be injured or diminished by the repeal; and that on the contrary, the property of every man must be augmented and rendered more secure. In short, the repeal must be good for every body and injure no one.

'Fourthly---The actual mode of carrying the repeal must be to augment the number of the repeal association, until it comprises four-fifths of the inhabitants of Ireland. The combination must be open and avowed--there must not be any secret society, or secrecy of any kind---there must be no declaration or oaths---no sign taken, or pass-word---there must in short be no violation of the law, nor anything concealed from the lawful and constitutional authorities of the state.

“Fifthly---Petitions to parliament for the repeal must emanate from each province in Ireland---there ought to be at least one million of signatures to each of the four provincial petitions. The universal sentiment