Mullen, left a pair of shoes to be soled with a shoemaker in Glasgow named M'Nulty, who promised to do them by the following day; that on calling for them next day and finding they had not been touched he became angry, and still more so on Saturday, the 14th, when he called again and found them still undone. During the altercation two workmen in the same trade, and acquaintances of his, called at M Nulty's, and each taking a shoe sat down there and then and soled it, Barrett sitting by while they did so, and actually reading to them an account of the Clerkenwell explosion, which appeared in a Glasgow evening paper of that day, in order to pass the time.

Michael M Nulty was then called and examined by Mr. Greene. He said he was a boot and shoe maker carrying on business at his own house in Glasgow, He knew Barrett. Had seen him three times at his own house. Saw him for the first time on Thursday evening, December 12. He came to witness's house with a man named Mullen, whom he knew personally. Mullen introduced Barrett, and asked him if he would sole, heel, and welt a pair of boots for Barrett. He said he would, and promised to have them ready on the next evening. On the next evening, the evening of the explosion at Clerkenwell, Barrett came, but he had not touched the boots at all. Witness said he had been in too big a hurry with his own work. He asked when they would be done, and witness promised to have them ready next day. He returned next day (Saturday) about five o'clock. The boots had not then been begun. He called witness any thing but a gentleman, and if it had not been on account of Mr. Mullen he said he would have put him and the boots out together, if he had been able. He cooled down a little bit, and two acquaintances of witness's, both shoemakers, came in. Witness asked one of them if he would be so kind as to do a favour for him that afternoon. He asked what it was, and witness said it was to sole, heel, and welt a pair of boots. He asked what time witness wanted the boots done, and he replied between six and seven. He said he could not do the boots in that time, and the other said he would do one boot, and the other man should do the other. They both sat down to do them, and they got them done betweeen six and seven o'clock. Barrett sent out for an evening paper while the boots were doing. There were two windows, and three of them worked at one window while Barrett sat at the other and read the paper. He read the account of the explosion in London, of which witness had heard in the morning. Barrett remained until the boots were finished. Mr. Mullen, who introduced him, had since gone to America. Barrett had from three to four days' beard upon him when he called upon him on the 12th, 13th, and 14th of December. Witness had not seen Barrett again until the preceding evening, when he saw him in gaol. Captain M'Call came to witness to ask if he knew a man named O'Neil or Barrett, who was called Jackson. A man named M'Manus called and showed witness a letter.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General.—I live in Bridgegate-street, Glasgow, a short way up the Green. I have not a shop, but work at my own house. I work for the shops, and if any one brings me a job, I do it. I work for Mr. Johnson and Mr. David Mahon; those are the only shops I work for. There is no name on my door. Mullen was a shoemaker, who worked for Mr. Neison. I have lived in Glasgow for fifteen or sixteen years. I have not the slightest notion where Mr. Neison lives, or where he lived at the time Mullen called upon me. I had known Mullen twelve months as a shoemaker. Ten months ago Mr. Neison's shop was at the bottom of the South Wynd.

came.

Mullen worked on his master's place, and he could not do the job of mending Barrett's boots without their going through his master's hands. He worked at making pegged boots. I last saw Mullen about the beginning of January at a soirée and ball in Glasgow. That was not a Fenian soirée or ball. It was held about the 2nd or 3rd of January. Mullen was a married man and had a wife and family at a house of his own at Canonrig-street. I have never seen Mullen since that night of the ball. My wife and little boy were present in the house, but there was no one else but Mullen and Barrett in the room on the 12th. Next day Barrett came alone, and the following day also. There was no one in the room on those two days but my little boy, who came running in and out. On the third day there was no one at all in the room when Barrett came. The soirée and ball were at the Bell Hotel, Trongate, Glasgow. Barrett had been in my house on the 14th ten or fifteen minutes before the two men came in. He said I was not a man worth much, and I said I was worth as much as he. I said that if it had not been on account of Mr. Mullen I would put him and the boots out together if I was able. After we had been talking in this way for ten minutes or a quarter of an hour with the boots lying on the floor the two other shoemakers came in. Barrett came about five minutes to three, and it was about ten minutes or a quarter past three when the men He sat there till between six and seven smoking and reading the paper. The only part of the paper he read out aloud was about the explosion. I cannot say whether he read the other parts of the paper or not. It cost 4s. 6d. to sole the boots, and Mullen paid me the same night in a public-house. It is in the street I live in, but I do not know the name of it. John Pake and a man named Welsh were the men who were in the room with us. My wife may have come in with a light for my pipe, but not to stop. I did not give Mullen any receipt. I heard to my sorrow that Mullen had gone to America, for I was bail for him for 5l. in a loan office. Captain M'Call called upon me on the Sunday after Barrett and O'Neill were taken. I knew O'Neill, but did not know where he lived-somewhere on the far side of the water, across the bridge; I had known O'Neill six or seven months. Three or four days after Captain M'Call called upon me. Mr. McManus came to see me and brought a letter. When Captain M'Call came to my house I did not tell him that I had never repaired any boots for Barrett, nor did I say that I did not remember any man coming to my house about that time to get boots bottomed. He asked me if I remembered any man coming and kicking up a row about boots not being "buttoned." I did not understand him at all, because I could not button any boots. I could have sewed on buttons, but I could not button boots. He mentioned the name of Barrett or else Jackson several times when he spoke to me about the boots. I said I did not know either Barrett or Jackson. I told Captain M'Call that no man came to me and kicked up a row about his boots not being "buttoned." told him that no man was sent out for a newspaper, and that no one read the account of the Clerkenwell outrage. I told him that O'Neill had brought in a paper on the morning of the 14th, containing an account of the Clerkenwell outrage. I did not tell Captain M'Call that there was no man who came to kick up a row with me because his boots were not ready. I did not tell Captain M'Call that no man had come to me with work. I did not say "work," I said I had never "buttoned" boots since I had been in the house. I did not say I had not bottomed boots for some one. It was three or four days after Captain M'Call called that I saw M'Manus. He

asked me whether I remembered bottoming or repairing a pair of boots. I said I did not remember at the time. After I had said that he read me a letter, which told him to go to a man named James Mullen.

The letter was then put in and read. It was from the prisoner Michael Barrett to a friend at Glasgow, and was dated Millbank Prison, London. The writer said he was grieved to say that a series of reverses had befallen him lately, of the cause of which he was ignorant. He had fallen into the meshes of the law, and once in them it was not easy to be extricated. He wished the person to whom the letter was addressed to go to a man named M'Nulty to see if he remembered doing a little work for him. If he did not his friend was to mention a few particulars which would bring the circumstance to his recollection-namely, that he (Barrett) waited upon him on three occasions on the 12th of December, when he went to him with Mullen and asked him to repair some boots, and on the 13th, when they were not ready, but when he promised to have them ready on the following day. On his going again on the 14th they had a row because the boots were not ready, and M'Nulty had to get two men to repair them. During the time they were at work he (Barrett) read the account of the Clerkenwell explosion to the men, which was the first they had heard of it. This, the writer went on to say, should bring the matter to M'Nulty's recollection. He was also to find out the two men who had helped to repair his boots. The letter, which was signed "Michael Barrett," contained a postscript requesting that his red Crimean shirt and other articles of clothing left at his lodgings at Glasgow should be forwarded to him, and added, “We are in a miserable condition, being without a friend or acquaintance to do any thing for us ;" and it concluded with saying, "Write at once; all our letters are read by the governor of the gaol."

The Attorney-General.-After having seen M'Manus when he read that letter to you, did you see Captain M'Call again?

Witness.-I did not go to Captain M'Call and tell him any thing about it. The Attorney-General.-I ask you again whether, before M Manus came to you with that letter, Captain M'Call had not expressly asked you whether you had repaired any boots for Barrett, whether you did not say, "I have not, nor do I remember any man coming to my house to get his boots bottomed, or kicking up a row because they were not done, or getting men to assist in doing them, or sending out for a newspaper to read while they did them "? Witness.-Captain M'Call came to me, but he did not mention any thing about my getting any one's boots "bottomed." He put me completely astray by talking of some one's boots being "buttoned." Nothing else occurred. O'Neill came to my house on Saturday morning, December 14, and brought a newspaper to my work-room. It contained the news of the explosion, but I did not read it, and my little boy took it away. I did not go to Captain M'Call after seeing M'Manus. I said I would find the two men who did Barrett's boots. I left Glasgow to come to town on the night of the 16th. There were seven of us who Myself, the two shoemakers, and M'Manus were shown Barrett in gaol yesterday evening, When he came to my house he had a hat on and dark clothes. I did not notice him much, for I did not like his way of talking to me. He wears now the jacket he then had on. He had no beard or hair then, except three or four days' growth. I did not assist in getting up the subscription for the Manchester men.

came up.

Re-examined. The other prisoners were with Barrett when I saw him in gaol

yesterday. They were all walked round, and I picked him out as the man who had been at my shop. Captain M'Call is the superintendent of the Glasgow police. When he called upon me he was accompanied by a detective named Smith. I am quite sure he did not ask me about "bottoming," but about "buttoning" boots. The reason I did not finish Barrett's boots was that I was obliged to finish a pair for the shop for which I worked.

By the Lord Chief Justice.-I cannot say how long it took Barrett to read the account of the Clerkenwell outrage to me and the men in my room-not very long. I have no clock, but I should not think it took more than five minutes. I do not know which of the Glasgow papers it was in. There are two published every day. It did not contain an account of any thing that had passed at the police-court in London-only the blowing up of the prison wall. It was just an account of the explosion. When Mullen introduced Barrett to me he did not tell me where he lived, and I did not ask. I do not know how it was that Barrett did not pay for his boots himself. He took the boots away with him, and I was content to look to Mullen for the money. He gave me no receipt.

By Mr. Baron Bramwell.-The boots I took home to the shop on Saturday night were one pair of men's boots. The shop I took them to was Mr. D. Mahon's. He gave me out that work on the 13th. I had only one day to do them in, and that was the reason why I could not repair Barrett's boots. I should have got no money that week unless I had finished Mr. Mahon's boots. I also had a pair to take home on the night of the 13th. The men who came to my house and who did Barrett's boots were journeymen shoemakers who had got their week's work finished. I cannot tell which of them mended the right boot and which the left. I believe that these men had not heard of the explosion, except that they might have seen it on the newspaper placards. I said it was a horrid event, and the other men said about the same. Barrett said it was the most ridiculous thing he ever read. I suppose he meant that it was a very wild job. All seemed to be quite "taken down" about it.

John Peak and John Welsh, the two shoemakers who, according to M'Nulty's story, mended Barrett's boots, were called, and repeated the story in all particulars. Nor were they shaken by cross-examination in any perceptible degree, except upon points of detail. There was then called another set of witnesses to support the alibi. The first of these was Arthur Burgoyne, a young man about Barrett's age. He said, I recognize Michael Barrett among the prisoners in the dock. I knew him first last August, at Glasgow. I generally met him once a week after that. I remember the executions at Manchester for the murder of Brett. There was a torchlight demonstration on the Thursday before the execution, which occurred on the Saturday. A Mr. M'Corrie was the chairman, and Michael Barrett was at it. I carried a torch. After the demonstration was over, I heard Barrett say that a person had run a torch against his jaw. He said his face was almost destroyed by it. When I knew him first he had a light, small, thin whisker, and this was his state at the demonstration. After the demonstration he had no whiskers. His whiskers appeared to have been singed. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General, he said he was not a Fenian. He could be a sympathizer with the men who were executed at Manchester without being a Fenian. He might have called them the murdered men, but did not remember having done so. Another witness, Charles M Manus, was next called. On the Testament being placed in his hand and the oath administered, he raised the book reverentially above his head at arm's length before kissing it. In

66

reply to Mr. Greene, he said he saw Barrett at the meeting to arrange a funeral demonstration. He had neither whiskers nor beard then, and had apparently not been shaved for three or four days. The date of that meeting was about the 13th of December." The cross-examination was directed to show that the witness sympathized with the Fenians. Mr. Peter M'Corrie was next called. He described himself as editor and proprietor of the Irish Catholic Banner, published at Glasgow. He also swore that Barrett was at the torchlight procession. The Attorney-General now adduced evidence to rebut the alibi. He called Mr. Alexander M'Call, superintendent of the Glasgow police, who said he received a copy of the letter written by Barrett from prison, in which he had asked a friend to seek out the shoemaker M'Nulty, and bring the facts sworn to in the alibi to his recollection. Mr. M'Call said, "I found out the man M⭑Nulty. I asked him some questions. He said, I never heard Barrett's name, nor do I know him at all. He never was introduced to me by O'Neill. I never repaired any boots for O'Neill. I do not remember any man coming to my house about that time to get boots buttoned." I asked him if he had any recollection of any man coming to his house to get a pair of boots "buttoned," and if he did not remember a man coming back there about that, and, the work not being done, his kicking up a row. He said he had no recollection of such a thing. I asked if he remembered a man who had left some work with him sending out for a newspaper and reading about the Clerkenwell affair. He said he did not, and that such a thing could not have taken place without his remembering it. I told M'Nulty I was chief superintendent of police when I asked him those questions.

M'Nulty was recalled at the instance of the Attorney-General, and in answer to questions by him said, I remember Mr. M'Call calling on me. I said I did not know Barrett, and had never heard of him, and that no such man was introduced to me by O'Neill. I said I did not remember any man coming to my house to get boots buttoned. Captain M'Call spoke of a row, and I did not understand what he meant. In fact, he completely humbugged me.

The witness M'Manus, the friend to whom Barrett's letter was communicated, was recalled, and cross-examined very minutely.

The Attorney-General then replied upon the whole case. Addressing himself to the alibi, he premised that the evidence for the prosecution, particularly that of the lad Morris and Mrs. Koeppel, showed conclusively that Barrett was in town some weeks before and on the 13th of December. He commented upon the absence in Barrett's letter of any statement that Mullen had introduced Barrett to M Nulty, as the latter had described, and upon the improbability that Mullen, himself a shoemaker, should have introduced Barrett to M'Nulty in order to have his boots soled. He turned next to the second branch of the alibi, referring first to Mr. Peter M'Corrie, whom he described as connected with a paper in which the most detestable and seditious writing habitually appeared. Adverting again to the letter written by Barrett from Millbank, the Attorney-General said it was strange that there was no allusion whatever in that letter to the meeting at "the Bell" on the 13th of December, or to the private tea-meeting immediately afterwards, or to M'Corrie playing the piano. According to the witness Burgoyne, from August to the latter part of December Barrett was in Glasgow. If that were so, why were not men with whom or for whom he worked, or persons with whom he lodged, called to corroborate that statement? Why should it rest on the evidence of one man? Morris and