have found, generally speaking, that the prosecutors upon all occasions almost were Protestants; have you found that there was any reluctance on the part of Roman Catholics to prosecute? Yes, I have.

"Do you consider that that reluctance proceeded from intimidation or from an indisposition to see the law properly executed ?-Both.

"Do you mean to convey to the Committee, that the Roman Catholics of the middle and higher orders are indisposed to the laws and government of the country?—The lower and middle classes are generally, but I should not take upon me to say the higher classes are.

"In both the counties of Galway and Kerry have you found among the Roman Catholic farmers any indisposition to prosecute?—Not in the county of Kerry, but I have in the county of Galway and the Queen's County.

"Do you attribute that indisposition to any want of concord between the Catholic farmers and the constabulary establishment? I attribute it more to intimidation."-H. C., 1832, Nos. 4181-3. 4187-8.

Thomas Bermingham, Esq., Queen's County:

"Are they not in that situation that they are obliged to connive at the nightly disturbances, and afraid to act or give information that other properties have been disturbed?—I think they are afraid to give public information, but I say they are anxious to come and explain what is going on, and to assist as far as they can; no men are more inclined; it is their own property which is at stake.

"Are the well-affected farmers in the county of Galway afraid to come forward publicly and give information, and do they not know and connive at a great deal which they would give to a person they had confidence in, if they were not brought forward as public prosecutors, in a court ?-Certainly, I think there is; I have known instances of that: if a man turns away his shepherd his flocks are left without one; there are the lambs to be attended to at particular seasons of the year, if he turns off a shepherd and appoints another. In

some places there is a combination going on, as much as to say, you shall not get rid of a servant who does not suit you; but I wish to remark that I have got a great deal of information in that way, which has enabled me to call together the gentlemen of the country to 'back their people, as I before described, and in that way you may bring the information you have got to bear, without the parties being known; you may unite and join several in putting that down, but above all the landlord, for if the landlord is not present he must have a representative who will expose these things; he must protect the tenantry and give them his advice. No doubt the landlord would have a great effect at all times by supporting the tenantry in this way, and putting an end to disturbances." H. C., 1832, Nos. 7196-7.

The following instance of unwillingness to prosecute (though ultimately overcome) is mentioned by Mr. Singleton :

"A man of the name of Nolan, who I am informed is in the possession of land, and has property to the amount of nearly 3007. a year, his house was attacked on the night of the 12th of this month. (June, 1832.)

6

"Was he a Protestant or Catholic ?-A Catholic; it was broken into, and when they entered it they commenced beating him most violently, and when his wife came to his assistance, they also struck her severely, and they were continuing with savage fury upon them till one of the party who was outside the house cried No. 25!' the announcement of which caused the whole of the party to retreat. Mr. Nolan went to a county magistrate and related the whole of the transaction, and stated to him that he did not know the persons of any of the party. I received information of the outrage through the police. I summoned him to appear before me at Ballyline; when he came before me his first word was, ' Sir, I do not know the persons of the party;' I told him, under the disturbed state of the country, I would not ask him to give me information against any individual, unless I bound myself to

6

place a party of police in his house for his family's protection. I asked him if he had any objection to give me an information of the facts; he said he had not. I took his oath to that information, and also swore him to answer me such questions as I should put to him concerning the outrage, and the persons who committed it; and when I asked him if he knew any of the persons, he refused to give me any answer: he said if he gave me that information his life would not be safe for twentyfour hours. I told him I would send a party of the police to his house for his protection; he said, That may do for the present, but I should after forfeit my property.' And when I found that had no effect upon him, I told him the law would authorize me, and as a police magistrate, I should commit him to the county gaol until he would answer the question. He said, Commit me if you please; while I will be inside the walls of Maryborough gaol, my person will be free from assassination.' Under those circumstances I did not ask him further, but I felt it my duty to commit him to Stradbally gaol for further examination; he was in gaol for forty-eight hours, and at the expiration of which he was then satisfied to make the information. He did do so, and he swore against ten men of the party, in consequence of which I was obliged to place a party of police in his house for the protection of himself and family.

"Has this house been attacked since, or any demonstration of it? No, not since."-H. C., 1832, Nos. 4095-7.

Such cases, however, as the following, in which the witness was afraid to tell the truth, are of much more frequent occurrence. Mr. Daly having mentioned the acquittal of seventeen persons, tried under one indictment, at the Mullingar Spring Assizes in 1825, is examined as follows:

"Have the goodness to state to the Committee what you know of that case ?-Most part of last winter, my neighbourhood was occasionally disturbed; a great many outrages had been committed, some houses attacked, many people waylaid

and punished for offences supposed, as I conceive, against the rules and regulations of the society generally termed Rockites. In the case of this man, a party had attacked his house from two different quarters in the neighbourhood.

"What was the name of the man?-Pat Connolly; he had been attacked by a party of several men; against some of them I had received information beforehand, by an informer to whom an illegal oath had been administered. I committed those men on this information, and sent the informer away out of the country for protection, under the care of a confidential person; before he left me, I perceived he had something still lurking in his mind, which he did not disclose at first; however, on his return in about ten days afterwards, I discovered that he was willing to give me further information; and that was, the attack on this man's house."

"Was the evidence given by the informer upon the trial corresponding with that he gave before the grand jury?—I was not present; but I know the evidence on the trial was at perfect variance with that before given.

"To what do you attribute the variance between the evidence before the grand jury and on the trial ?-Intimidation; fear to prosecute.

"What reason have you for that opinion?-Generally the cause of such acquittals in my country is fear and intimidation; the fear of giving evidence in consequence of being considered informers, and unfortunately an undue regard for the obligation of an oath amongst the lower orders.

“Did any circumstance of an extraordinary nature occur after the acquittal of those prisoners, which served to explain how it came to pass?-After the acquittal, the agent of the prisoners came down to them, as I was informed by the affidavit of a policeman, and said to them, I did the business well last night, or you (the prisoners) would have been beat to-day; the Connollys did their business right well on the table to-day."-H. L., 1825, p. 512, 13.

Another remarkable example of this kind of intimi

dation is mentioned by Mr. Myles O'Reilly, as having recently fallen under his observation, when sitting on the grand jury at the Maryborough Assizes.

"An aged man and his wife were produced as witnesses to sustain an indictment for a grievous outrage and assault. An armed party had come to his house at night, and inquired why he had not subscribed to some demand that had previously been given to him relative to some small piece of land; he made the best excuse he could; but one of them, after having put him on his knees, deliberately cut off his ear, and the party beat him and his wife severely. They had proceeded before the magistrates the following day, and had distinctly described and subsequently identified five or six persons, who were then indicted. When the old couple came before the grand jury they both deliberately denied the informations altogether as to the identity; they sustained them in every other particular, but affected to be quite ignorant of the persons who had committed the offence. The grand jury were disposed immediately to order an indictment to be preferred for perjury, but suspended doing so at my request, until I should speak with the poor couple outside. I did not ask them to commit themselves to an avowal of the perjury that they manifestly had committed, but the poor man, showing me his ear, said, ' Sir, I have still got one ear, and my skull is not broke; I have lived too long in my place to wish to give it up; I have grandchildren-orphans-to protect, and my old wife and myself are too old and too poor to set about transporting ourselves;' and the indictment for perjury under those circumstances was not preferred by the grand jury.

Did the prosecution go on ?—It could not go on; it utterly failed, and the offenders were let loose to re-commence their outrages."-H. C., 1832, Nos. 5916-17.

There is no name of more ominous sound in Ireland than that of informer. A man who has given information or evidence against a Whiteboy is doomed to certain death. If he attempted to return from the assizes