\ 254 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Rev. E. M- Gaver. 12173. Tlien the nine Roman- catholics, or such of them as got portions of land, were not put into possession of any part of the farms ?— Not the farms they had. 19 May 1838. 12174. Was not it part of the townland?— It was part of the townland, but not of the farms thev had before. 12175. The land that the Roman- catholics got was different land from what any of them had held before ?— Yes. 12176. Are you aware that this transaction you have been giving in evidence here was published in a Dublin newspaper at the time, the Freeman's Journal?— I am. 12177. Did you give any information to the Freeman's Journal at that time ?—• No. 12178. Are you aware who gave information to the Freeman's Journal ?— I gave information to the then Member for Drogheda, Mr. O'Dwyer, at his request. I did not give it for the purpose of publishing in the newspaper. I understood, from the information I got from the editor of the Register, that a prosecution had been instituted. It was very general that if a man would even tell the truth, a prosecution was instituted against the editor of the paper; they wrote to me to know whether I would give up my name; I stated that when I wrote to Mr. O'Dwyer, I had no connexion directly or indirectly with the publication of it; and that if he afterwards published my letter, he might abide the consequences, but that I was not responsible. 12179. Then you heard that your letter was published in the Freeman's Jour- nal ?— It was an extract from my letter that was published. 12180. Do you mean to say that it was a prosecution that was instituted, not a civil action ?— Perhaps I may be wrong in the terms of law. 12181. Are you not aware that an action was brought for damages against the editor of the Freeman's Journal for publishing a libel ?— Yes. 12182. Are you aware that the editor of the Freeman's Journal published an apology for publishing that accusation?— I am ; and I called him to account for so doing. I said it would be better for him to say nothing about it, than to publish it and then to contradict it; and he stated that he applied to the author, and he did not take upon himself to substantiate the facts. I asked him, " How could he venture to say so?" His explanation was, " That he hoped I would not press the thing to his injury, as he might incur expenses, and that if the thing were given up. he would satisfy me in any way. I was induced, by the interference of friends, to say nothing more about it. He had already suffered on account of his publish- ing a letter from another clergyman, respecting Lady Ross and Mr. Robinson. 12183. You mean to say that another action had been brought previously against the same editor of the Freeman's Journal, for publishing another statement which came from another Roman- catholic clergyman in the county ?— I do. 12184. Flow long before was that ?— Perhaps some two or three years. 12185. That was a libel also upon Lady Ross?— If the truth be a libel. 12186. Are you aware that when a party brings an action against another for publishing a libel against him, if the other says, " I admit I did publish it, but I say it is true, and I will prove it to be true," are you aware that if he does so prove it to be true, that is a good defence to a civil action, though it is not to an indict- ment for a libel?— I was not aware of that; I thought the greater the truth the greater the libel. 12187. Is it possible that you are not aware that that would be a defence to a civil action?— I was not aware of it. 12188. Were there damages had against the Freeman's Journal in that former case ?— No, he apologized. 12189. You were understood to say that the same editor had suffered before ?— I meant to say that he had been threatened ; I know that the clergyman was not put to expense, for he consented to a retractation. 12190. Then the Roman- catholic clergyman, who had supplied the editor of the Freeman's Journal with the subject- matter of that publication, consented to a retractation of the charge ?— Yes. 12191. That was another libel or alleged libel upon Lady Ross?— Yes; lam in that parish now ; I succeeded him there. I know the place where the persons had been turned out, and I find that his statement is correct. 12192. You must be aware, that merely saying that persons were turned out would not be a libel?— I believe he gave the motive. 12193 What