/ V SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. 167 7 10516. Is that the reason why you think he was an Orangeman ?— Yes; and his Mr. s, Nicholh. being nephew to Mr. Bentley. ___ 10517. The first reason is, that he witnessed the woman being stabbed in the 18 May 1838,, thigh ?— Yes ; and declined to come forward to prosecute. 10518. Did he decline to come forward to prosecute ?— Yes. 10519. Upon what authority do you say so?— Because I pressed him to do it. 10520. To come forward against yourself?— No; but against the policeman. 10521. Was not the prosecution against you on that occasion?— Yes. 10522. Then how was it you pressed him to come forward in a prosecution, in which you were one of the parties prosecuted ?— I considered the policeman ought to be prosecuted, and if he came forward against the policeman, it would have more effect than if half a dozen such as I gave evidence. 10523. Did he tell you the reason why he did not come forward ?— He told me it was because he did not like to interfere in it. 10524. Did he tell you he was an Orangeman?— No, he did not. 10525. And that is the only reason why you suppose he is an Orangeman?— And because he was a nephew of Mr. Bentley. 10526. And because he was a nephew of Mr. Bentley, you think he must be an Orangeman ?— Yes; and because he would not come forward. 10527. Have you any third reason?— No. 10528. These are your only reasons for thinking him an Orangeman ?— Yes; I consider them quite sufficient. 10529. Do you consider these are quite sufficient to form a dispassionate judg- ment of the fact that he was an Orangeman ?— They might not have been sufficient reasons, but the impression on my mind was that he was one. 10530. Now be so good as to tell me any other gentleman who was employed as agent or counsel, as you say, by the people, that was an Orangeman?— I do not think there were any more. 10531. Then is this the evidence in detail which you give to support the statement with which you set out, that Orangemen were employed as counsel and agents by the people ?— T think I stated that Protestants and some Orangemen were employed as counsel and agents. 10532. Now amongst the counsel that were employed, was there a single one, with the exception of Mr. Hare, whose politics were not quite of the opposite side ? — I consider they were, with the exception of Mr. Hare; that Mr. Colquhoun, Mr. Hutton, Mr. Berwick, and Mr. Curran were liberal Protestants, but we had not a Roman- catholic counsel at all. 10533. I am not asking you about Roman- catholics?— No; but you are so anxious to get information, that I thought it no harm to give you that much. 10534. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Was anybody by when you asked Mr. Reddeck to come forward, and prosecute the policeman ?— Yes. 10535. Who was?— There was a good number; it was in the public room of the hotel where he was sitting. 10536. Will you give me the name of any one who was by?— I cannot exactly now ; it is nearly six years ago since the thing occurred. 10537. But you certainly applied to him to come forward to prosecute the policeman for stabbing a woman ?— Yes ; I think Mr. Flood was present. 10538. If there is any doubt whether Mr. Flood was present or not, you did apply to Mr. Reddeck to come forward to prosecute the policeman for stabbing the woman ?— I did, and he declined doing so. 10539. And what was the reason he assigned?— The reason he assigned was, that he did not like to have anything to do with it; he did not like to have any bother about it. 10540. You are sure that was the answer he gave?— Something to that effect. 10541. Mr. Lefroy.] You thought he did wrong in not coming forward?— Yes. 10542. You decidedly thought he was wrong?— Yes. 10543. You thought it was his duty to come forward ?— Yres. 10544. Now, upon what principle did you think he was wrong in not coming forward to prosecute that policeman, when you did not think it was your duty to prosecute a policeman who fractured a man's skull ?— That was a thing that occurred in daylight, and a great many saw it; and I considered others should have taken the thing up as well as me. 10545. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Did you consider a jury could be got to convict that policeman, if Mr. Reddeck came forward to prosecute ?— I considered it 643. . Y 4 ml^ ht