SELECT COMMITTEE ON FICTITIOUS VOTES, IRELAND. 215 12193. What motive did he give ?— Because they were Catholics; he made Rev. E. M'Gaver complaint on the conduct both of Lady Ross and Mr. Robinson. 12194. Were you applied to by the editor of the Freeman's Journal to sub- 29 May 1838. stantiate the statement you had furnished to Mr. O'Dwyer?— I do not think those were the exact words, but I have his letter. It was to' know what he should do under such circumstances. 12195. What was your answer ?— My answer was, that when I wrote to Mr. O'Dwyer, at his request, stating the number that had been turned out in my parish, I had no idea of having that published ; and that if he, the editor, had taken an extract from my letter and published it, I should not be accountable for the conse- quences. 12196. Do you mean to say that you did not furnish that to Mr. O'Dwyer for the purpose of being published ?— I wrote it to Mr. O'Dwyer as a Member of Par- liament. 12197. Was not it with the view of furnishing Mr. O'Dwyer with the materials for making a public statement?— It was to use in any way he liked; of course he should make it public in one way or another. Newspaper report is one way of publishing, and speaking of it in the House of Commons is another. 12198. Because doing it in Parliament is privileged ?— I left that for his own discretion. 12199. Do not you think that when an individual takes upon himself to make a statement of matters of fact, imputing motives to a person, for the purpose of being made public in any shape, that that individual should be prepared at any call to substantiate the truth of the statement?— Certainly ; I was prepared to substantiate the truth of it. 12200. Then was not the letter from the editor of the Freeman's Journal sub- stantially an invitation to you to substantiate your statement, in point of fact?— He did not ask it in that way ; he asked what to do. I gave him an answer; and then, without consulting me further, he made a retractation. 12201. Upon receiving such a letter from the editor of a newspaper against whom proceedings were taken for the publication of matters that had proceeded from you, must not you have been aware that the object of such an application was to get means of defending himself in the action ?— I think it was for- the purpose of my taking upon myself the responsibility and the consequences of such an action, and I did not like to involve myself in law. 12202. You have stated that the communication from the editor was to know what he should do; that is, whether he should defend the action or whether he should retract ?— No, I did not take that view of it. He stated the facts that had occurred, and asked what would he do under the circumstances. My answer was, that I had written my letter not to him, but to Mr. O'Dwyer; that if he thought proper to take extracts from my letter and publish them, he alone should be accountable. 12203. Must not you have understood such a question as that from the editor of a newspaper under those circumstances to mean, " What shall I do with respect to this action j shall I defend it, or shall I strike and retract?" What other meaning could you put upon those words?— I took it that the question was tantamount to asking me, " Will you hazard the expense of a law- suit?" That is the view I took of the question. 12204. Mr. Curry.] Did the editor ask whether he might give your name as the author of the publication ?— I think that is what he said, " What shall I do?" I am not certain whether he asked whether he should give my name. 12205. Mr. O'Connell.] You were understood to say, that he said in the letter that he had been asked for the name of the author?— There are two cases I have spoken of; there is one case of a letter from a clergyman where the Freeman's Journal was concerned, and 1 was not concerned in that. 12206. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Do you conceive it to be correct to put matter reflecting on the character of an individual into public circulation, and not to be prepared to take the responsibility and the consequences of that ?— I would con- sider myself bound to be responsible lor the consequences, if justice would be done under such circumstances; that is, if I stated what was untrue, then I certainly think no punishment could be too great for me; but if I stated what was true, then that, notwithstanding the statement being true, I should be prosecuted and an action brought against me lor damages for stating the truth, I think that unfair, inasmuch as I was not up to the lull extent of the law of libel. 1 did not myself communicate 643. H H 2 " with