\ 254 MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE THE Rev. E. M'Gaver. mation of a man having kept a public- house in Ballymahon, where persons got - these certificates. 25 May 1838. 11955. How long ago was that?— About 10 months. I invited three neigh- bouring clergymen to meet me on a particular day; I told them the object I had in view, and if they would go in with me to meet these persons, it might effect the object in view, We did go in, and the persons were not there ; whether they were aware of our coming or not I do not know, but I believe they were there on a certain day giving out tickets. 11956. You were aware this was a very mischievous association?— Yes, and I endeavoured to put it down. 11957. Then did you not think it your duty to ascertain the extent of the mischief ?— I could not ascertain that, as they could not tell me unless I got hold of the secretary or some such person. 11958. This man from whom you got the information last harvest, was one of them ?— I do not know who was the last person I got information from, but I am aware I got that information and acted in the way I have described. 11959. Are you aware that he was one of your parishioners ?— I cannot say ; I sometimes get information from neighbouring parishioners as well as my own. 11960. Did you lay any information before the magistrates?— I did not. 11961. Did you communicate with the Government about it?— I did not. 11962. Did you communicate with the bishop about it?— I do not think the bishop was at home at that time ; I know he was not, but I communicated with the neighbouring parish priests. 11963. Had you any reason to suppose that anything of the sort had come within their knowledge ?— I called upon them to aid and encourage their parishioners in making it known. 11964. Had you any reason to believe that the same thing existed in their parishes ?— No; they were not aware of it till I told them. 11965. Did you ask them if anything of the sort existed in their parishes?—• I am not aware what questions I put to them ; but I know that every clergyman who came in from that neighbourhood was as anxious to put it down as I was. 11966. Were you made acquainted by any clergyman that the same thing had occurred in any other parish than yours as to the existence of these secret societies ?— It could not be considered as upon any footing in my parish; it was only commencing ; and I believe if the clergy did not speak strongly against it, they would be very general in the country. 11967. Do you not think it is very necessary to get at the bottom of this mischief and counteract it?— So we did. 11968. Why did you not inquire of that man who brought the document what the nature of their mischievous association was, what they were banded together for, and what their object was ?— I do not think I put the question to him; but I was reasoning with others, and I asked why it was they did it, and some of them said they M ould not consider themselves safe in going to fair or market, if they did not belong to a party ; they would not be able to tell any further mean- ing for it than that, if they were not in a party, others would get the better of them ; they would quarrel with each other, and it was for the purpose of having a party, that they might not be beaten. I know others, and from their standing in the county, I think it was more for their opportunity of being leaders, and of having money to spend with each other, than any other object they had in view. There was one of them who lives very convenient to myself at present, and hearing that he was a person distributing these tickets, I mentioned his name publicly. I knew I was acting contrary to law, that he might punish me for it; but when I found he was not deterred by general observations, I mentioned his name, and I do not think he had any object but getting money and being extravagant. 11969. Is it a serious thing to mention a man's name in chapel?— Yes; I think he could take an action against me. 11970. Does it injure or lower a man in the opinion of his fellow- parishioners ? — Of course ; must not his character be lost ? 11971. It damages his character ?— Yes, with a portion of the community. 1 1972. They would not associate with him or deal with him ?—' They would not. 17 11973- So that the authority of the priest leads people to believe that he is a bad character ?— Yes, of course, they consider him an unsafe character. 11974. You