188 M l N X J T E S OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Mr S Nicholls 10481. Give me the name of any one Orangeman employed as counsel or agent * ' bv the peoplep— I can only give you them as far as I know by reputation ; , t 18 May 1838. being a secret association, 1 had no opportunity of knowing, but they were reputed Orangemen. Here is George Bentley, who was our attorney for a time j he avows himself an Orangeman. 10482. Whose attorney was her— He was attorney for the Liberals at that election. 10483. In 1832?— Yes, he acted for them. 10484. Now give me the name of any other person?— Mr. Colquhoun was a Protestant gentleman. 10485. Was Mr. Colquhoun an Orangeman ?— No, I believe not. Mr. Fleming is a Presbyterian, and he was our attorney for a time. 10486. Is he an Orangeman ?— I think not. 10487. Go on?— Mr. Hare was employed for us. 10488. At the registry of 1832?— Yes, I gave seven guineas to retain Mr. Hare. 10489. For attending before the registering barrister?— Yes ; here is the entry, " Paid Mr. Bentley to engage Mr. Hare, 2 /. 2 s. for the registry, and 5 I. 5 s. to attend on appeals." 10490. I ask you, before the registering barrister ?— I stated before, the quarter sessions, the registry, and the assizes were all held together, and Mr. Hare was down at the assizes ; both the registry and the assizes were going on at the same time. 10491. I asked you, was Mr. Hare employed before the registering barrister, and you told me he was ?— I consider he was ; he got 2 /. 2 s. to attend before the registering barrister, and 5 I. 5 s. before the judge. 10492. Is your testimony now that Mr. Hare was employed before the register- ing barrister in 1832 ?— Both the assizes and the registry were going on together. 10493. Is your testimony now that Mr. Hare was or was not employed before the registering barrister in 1832?— I consider he was. 10494. That is your testimony, that he was?— That is the impression on my mind, that he was. 10495. You will not be sure of it?— No. 10496. But that is the impression on your mind ?— Yes. 10497. What is the ground of that impression ?— Because I see entries of 2 /. 2 s. and 5 /. 5 10498. Was that 2 I. 2 s. a retaining fee?— Very likely it might have been. 10499. ^ not so entered?— Yes, " to engage Mr. Hare." 10500. Is not that a retaining fee ?— Yes. 10501. What is the business for which he appears to have been retained, ac- cording to the entry on the face of your book?— I believe for appeals. 10502. Were they appeals before the registering barrister ?-- No, they were not. 10503. Then tell me any business before the registering barrister, in which it appears, on the face of your book, that Mr. Hare was employed ; is there any?— 10504. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Is that the elder Mr. Hare?— Yes. 10505. Mr. Lefroy.] Is that Mr. Hare an Orangeman ?— I do not know ; I be- lieve he is a man of rather high ascendancy feelings. 10506. Do you believe he is an Orangeman ?— I cannot say. 10507. Mr. Serjeant Jackson.] Did you ever hear he was an Orangeman?— I rather think not. 10508. Mr. Lefroy.] Now tell me any other gentleman who was employed that was an Orangeman ?— We had Mr. Hutton engaged. 10509. Is he an Orangeman?— I believe not. 10510. You only believe it?— Of course, I could not be certain. 10511. You had Mr. Berwick employed ; is he an Orangeman?— I think not 10512. Whom else had you employed?— I believe that is all; we had a Mr. Bentley 3 D6pheW ° f MJBentle3'' he was apprentice and nephew to Mr. George 10513. Is he a gentleman of the bar ?— No, an attorney. 10514. Was he an Orangeman ?— I am inclined to think he was 1 .105' 5- What reason have you to think so ?— Why he witnessed that woman being stabbed in the thigh. 10516. Is