^^y*f>?^^^:^:'::' '^^iTf^^ X: ;^: 
 
 
 
 .A.-/r'' 
 
 :-4< 
 
 
 fft^}^'^^^^^:: ^'^r-^ 
 
 ^'•u- ' ■' 
 
C^ J S~D 
 
DIARY OF THE PARNELL COMMISSION. 
 
DIARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PARNELL COMMISSION 
 
 Revised from ''THE DAILY NEWS 
 
 BY 
 
 JOHN MACDONALD, M.A. 
 
 BOSTON COLLEGK LIBHAUY 
 CllliSTNUT HILL, MASS. j 
 
 T. FISHER UNWIN 
 
 PATERNOSTER SQUARE 
 
Inscribed 
 
 TO 
 
 J. R. ROBINSON, Esq. 
 
 Editor of 
 
 The Daily News. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 "What were the beginnings of the public inquiry which the Special Commission 
 has brought to an end ? WTien Mr. P. O'Connor was in the witness-box 
 he told Mr. Ronan, with an amusing expression of surprise and compassion, 
 that they were about three centuries old. For, whatever else it might be, the 
 inquiry was an incident of the " Parnell Movement"; and Mr. Ronan, con- 
 scious that he must begin his cross-examination somehow, but feeling a little 
 fluttered, had just asked the historian of the movement to tell him when the 
 movement began. 
 
 Sir Henr}' James, in an address which even his opponents frankly admire 
 for its ability and ingenuity, and a courtesy and considerateness that render it 
 all the more formidable — Sir Henry James traces the origin of the inquiry to a 
 speech of Mr. Parnell's, made during the debate on the Address, February, 
 1887, and warning the Government against the dangers of Coercion. But if a 
 date must be chosen, w^hy not make it thirty-five minutes to one of the morning 
 of the 7th of June, 1886, when the House of Commons saw one of the most 
 impressive scenes in its great history ; when it had just reached the "parting 
 of the ways," and each had chosen his path ; and when, with an impulse 
 characteristic of their race, the solid mass of Irish Nationalists sprang up with 
 " three cheers for the Grand Old Man," in the hour of his defeat.^ 
 
 The inquiry has been an expression of a general and far-reaching consequence 
 — the re-grouping of men, in accordance with their choice between rival notions 
 of right and duty, between rival political ideals, even between rival estim.ates 
 of human nature — which has followed from that night's test, as surely as in a 
 chemist's tube the ingredients are "precipitated" by a drop. And so, as 
 regards Ireland, the first signs of the coming conflict manifested themselves in 
 the February debate, of which Sir Henry James has spoken. The next came 
 from T/ie Times. On the 7th of March, 1887, appeared the first article of the 
 famous series known as " Parnellism and Crime," the second on the 14th, 
 the third on the i8th. And on the 22nd, Mr. Balfour answered the challenge 
 of June, 1886, by giving notice of his Coercion Bill. T/ie Times articles had 
 prepared the way for him. For jVIr. Balfour's purpose, they were worth a 
 dozen speeches. It is hardly correct to say that they were a mere " re-hash" 
 of forgotten accusations ; for though more open to this criticism than subsequent 
 ones, they also, like these — though in a less degree — presented the accusations 
 with a definiteness, a systematic comprehensiveness, and a connection of 
 detail, w^hich were new to the public. The few well-informed persons to 
 
 ^ Since then I have witnessed an interesting illustration of the same characteristic, at a 
 popular gathering. It was in a densely crowded meeting in the Rotunda, Dublin, end of 1887. 
 Some hissing arose at the mention of Mr. Bright's name. But in an instant the sound was 
 extinguished by a shout of protest from five thousand throats. Mr. Bright had been saying 
 pretty hard things about the Home Rulers ; but the Dublin people remembered that in other 
 days JMr. Bright had struck many a strong blosvfsr Ireland. 
 
 iW kj- ± 'S 
 
vi Frefacci 
 
 whom the articles were little more than a "re-hash " failed to make fair allow- 
 ance for the ignorance of the man in the street. 
 
 Then the conflict developed itself all along the line — the Government, after 
 a hard fight, carrying precedence for its Coercion Bill, reading the Bill, for the 
 first time, in the beginning of April, by 361 against 253, and in three or four days 
 more introducing the debate on the second reading ; The Times all the while 
 preaching from its dreadful text — "We charge that the Land League chiefs 
 based their movement on a scheme of assassination carefully calculated and 
 coolly applied." And London poured her Radical Clubs, Associations, and 
 Federations of all sorts, into Hyde Park, with their endless flutter of flags, the 
 green among them, and the emblems of the harp and the shamrock ; and with 
 British brass bands playing an Irish anthem which, borrowed by a Times 
 criminal from the farewell of a convict in the dock, has since gone round the 
 world. Fronting that long semi-circle of " pavilions," each with its orator-in- 
 chief, Mr. Sexton, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Hunter, Professor James Stuart, Mr. 
 Michael Davitt, and others, there were about a quarter of a million souls, 
 with their protest against Coercion. 
 
 The Ti?nes also took stock of this monster demonstration, and replied with 
 a double dose of " Parnellism and Crime " — a special article on " the League 
 at work," and a slashing leader. This was on April 12th. In another day 
 or two appeared its report of a bitter speech of Mr. Chamberlain's at Ayr. 
 The Irish members were goaded into fury ; and on the night of the 15th 
 there broke out the wild scene in Parliament — Colonel Saunderson, his tall 
 figure bolt upright, his chest thrown out, shaking his fist at the Irish benches, 
 as he called the League " a criminal conspiracy, supported by American 
 dynamitards and murderers, with its heads in the House of Commons " ; and 
 ]\Ir. Healy, starting up, and uttering, with all his force of hate and contempt, 
 "liar " ; and Mr. Sexton, with his " liar and coward," and threat of personal 
 violence; and the defiant shouts from both sides of the House, "Retract," 
 " Name," " Down with him," and all the rest of it. 
 
 So far it was, to borrow an expression of the Attorney-General's, an "open 
 movement." But there was also an "underground movement," to borrow an- 
 other. The defenders did not know, any more than the rest of the world, that the 
 miner, patiently at work for months, was beneath their feet, ready to blow them 
 up. It was now the morning of the i8th — last day of the debate on the second 
 reading. And the directors of operations in Printing House Square did what 
 any journalist would have done — any journalist, alive to his responsibilities, 
 rejoicing in a big discovery, and naturally indisposed to incur the risk [if he 
 refrained] of being himself blown up, as a person without patriotism and 
 a proper sense of business. Now or never ; on the morning of the 18th, The 
 Times sprang its first mine: \h.Q facsimile letter stared London in the face, and 
 in a few hours the Bill to coerce the alleged murder-mongers was read the 
 second time by 370 against 269. Here is ih^ facsimile letter, so called because 
 it came first in a series of like publications : — 
 
 15/5/S2. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am not surprised at your friend's anger, but he and you should know that to de- 
 nounce the murders was the only course open to us. To do that promptly was plainly our 
 best policy. 
 
 But you can tell him and all others concerned that though I regret the accident of Lord P 
 Cavendish's death, I cannot refuse to admit that Burke got no more than his deserts. 
 
 You are at liberty to show him this, and others whom you can trust also, but let not my 
 address be known. He can write to House of Commons. 
 
 Yours verj- truly, 
 
 Chas. S. Parnell. 
 
 Between the words "plainly" and "our," was an erasure of three words that 
 appeared to be a repetition — " the only course " — of words almost immediately 
 
Preface. vii 
 
 preceding. The Times explained that the "Dear Sir" was supposed to mean 
 Patrick Egan. 
 
 Now, exclaimed The Times, now IMessrs. Sexton and Healy, what of your 
 ^'unblushing denials " of Friday night ? Then, returning to the general charge, 
 The Times pointed out that the accused had made no reply. Useless to pre- 
 tend indifterence. Either the charges against you are true, or they are not. 
 If they are not, you should sue for "damages." But you have not done it. 
 You have written "no letters" ; not even to The Times, wherein the civilized 
 world ventilates its grievances. And yet our pamphlet on " Parnellism and 
 Crime " has been before the public for a month. 
 
 A copy of the pamphlet which I have before me bears the announcement "one 
 hundred and twentieth thousand." The stronger expressions on its title-page 
 are printed in red ink. In one of the corners is a mark not unlike a red 
 thumb-mark. It is explained to be " the brand of the National League." But 
 a leaguer might perhaps take it for the symbol of a Royal Irish constable's 
 baton, after a charge. 
 
 Sir Henry James's speech has been an effort to prove that, even if the fac- 
 simile letters had been genuine they would have been chiefly interesting as 
 illustrations or corroborations of the charges made in the three series of articles 
 known as " ParnelHsm and Crime;" that the withdrawal of the letters did not 
 matter very much. In the first article of the first series, it was said : — 
 
 Be the ultimate goal of these men what it will, they are content to march towards it in com 
 pany with murderers. Murderers provide their funds, murderers share their inmost counsels, 
 murderers have gone forth from the League offices to set their bloody work afoot, and have 
 presently returned to consult the " Constitutional leaders," on the advancement of the cause. 
 
 But as if that terrific charge were not enough, the article proceeded to make 
 another, which, if true, should ultimately have led to the appearance even of 
 Mr. Gladstone himself, and Earl Spencer, as respondents side by side with Mr. 
 Biggar and ]Mr. jNIatt. Harris ; for the article said that these were the very men 
 "who, in the plenitude of official knowledge," made Mr. Parnell responsible 
 for " arson, murder, and treason." The first article was entitled, " A Retros- 
 pect — Ireland"; and, in illustration of its general charge, it quoted several 
 speeches from leading orators of the Leagi;e. The second, entitled, "A 
 Retrospect — America," reproduced certain lunatic ravings from a newspaper 
 correspondent signing himself "Transatlantic," and a ranting speech in which 
 Frank Byrne, then in America, advised the use, against England, of "every 
 weapon which nature and science have furnished." The third article was 
 headed, " The Connection between Parnellism and the Irish ^Murder Societies.'' 
 Having declared that even "now" (March, 1887) the Parnellite "conspiracy" 
 was controlled by dynamiters and assassins, the article proceeded : — 
 
 We have seen how the infernal fabric rose "like an exhalation" to the sound of murderous 
 oratory ; how assassins guarded it about, and enforced the high decrees of the secret conclave 
 within by the ballot and the knife. Of that conclave to-day, three members sit in the Imperial 
 Parliament, four are fugitives from the law. 
 
 " Egan and Sullivan," continued the article, "ran the machine in the interests 
 of the ' Constitutional movement,' and from this congress of Fenians, murderers, 
 and dynamiters, the Irish National League of America arose." 
 
 After the three articles, there followed forty-three pages of notes on agrarian 
 crimes, and the dreary record [the authenticity of which no leaguer ever denied, 
 but the origin of which from the League was the point to be proved] ended 
 with the following appeal for coercion : — 
 
 Men of England ! these are the foul and dastardly methods by ivhich the National League 
 and the Parnellites have established their terrorism over a large portion of Ireland T Will you 
 refuse the Government the powers which will enable these cowardly miscreants to be punished, 
 and which will give protection to the millions of honest and loyal people in Ireland? 
 
viii Preface, 
 
 The second reading having been passed, the House must have its moral sup- 
 port during the usually tedious, but occasionally exciting, committee stage. 
 Leading articles, enforcing the general conclusion of the pamphlet, appeared in 
 the later days of April ; and on the 2nd of ]May, a long paper on " Mr. Dillon 
 and Mr. P. J. Sheridan," asserting, "not only that Sheridan was simultaneously 
 an organizer of murderous associations and the close companion of the leaders 
 of the ' Constitutional Agitation,' but also that his personal relations with Mr. 
 Dillon himself were of a kind which that gentleman, however convenient his 
 memory, can hardly have succeeded in entirely forgetting." 
 
 T/ie Ti/nes, in short, accused Mr. Dillon of wilful misstatement. And on the 
 following night Sir Charles Lewis moved that the article should be treated as a 
 breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. This led to a debate, in 
 which Mr. W. H. Smith proposed the alternative of a prosecution of The Times 
 for libel, and offered the accused the gratuitous aid of the Attorney-General. 
 Mr. Dillon refused the offer. Sir Charles Lewis's motion was rejected on a 
 division. The same fate befell Mr. Gladstone's amendment, and the subject 
 was dismissed. 
 
 But two months had yet to pass before the Coercion Bill could become law ; 
 and in the interval the second and third series of articles were published. They 
 contained even more serious accusations than those of the first. An article 
 of May 13th, "Behind the Scenes in Amierica," announced that a quarrel 
 among the Clan-na-Gael had enabled the writer to get at his facts. " It has 
 l)een possible to procure a number of important documents." What the facts 
 and documents were, a meritorious detective, as Sir Henrj' James has just been 
 calling him, was destined, as one of the most interesting witnesses in a histori- 
 cal trial, to set forth in greater detail. Meanwhile, the articles stated 
 generally that in the year of the Land League the conspirators succeeded in 
 getting the American Clan-na-Gael and the Irish parliamentary party into line. 
 The childish gibberish of the conspii-ators' cipher was interpreted. " Jsfmboe " 
 meant Ireland, and "Csjujti," British. The cipher was obtained by substituting 
 for each letter of the alphabet the letter immediately following it. Thus the 
 word Irish became " Jsjti," and the " D. Ps.," or district members, of the Clan- 
 na-Gael camps were known as the " E. N." 
 
 By the 8th of July there was no more occasion for " Parnellism and Crime '* 
 articles. On that date was passed the third reading of the Coercion Bill, under 
 which fully one-third of the Nationalist members charged by The Times have 
 since been put under lock and key — several of them more than once — and with 
 a good deal of battling against jail warders, jail barbers, and jail clothesmen. 
 
 Months passed away ; neither the Irish leader nor any of his colleagues took 
 any further notice of the accusations against them; and "Parnellism and 
 Crime" appeared to be forgotten. But in the summer of 18S8, Mr. F, H. 
 O'Donnell, formerly a member of the party, and conceiving himself (after 
 mature reflection) to have been included among the leading members attacked 
 by The Times, prosecuted the paper for damages. From the Lord Chief 
 Justice jMr. O'Donnell received a severe rebuke for his pains, and ^Nlr. 
 Ruegg, the prosecuting counsel, an unpleasant criticism on his way of conduct- 
 ing his case. " I cannot see anything in these articles which is a libel on Mr. 
 O'Donnell," said Lord Coleridge : "I am really surprised that any man, 
 having any sense of fairness, should desire for his own end, for some purpose 
 or another, to try the cause in such a way. " In the articles ^Ir. O'Donnell 
 was not once mentioned. Nor was he ever regarded by the Parnellites as a 
 leader of their party — unless his ^-ice -chairmanship of an English branch of the 
 League entitled him to the designation. The case was dismissed. In itself it 
 is scarcely worth notice in this brief survey of events. But Mr. Ruegg's method 
 of presenting it not only compelled Sir Richard Webster to reproduce and 
 exhaustively comment upon all the "Parnellism and Crime" articles, but it 
 
Preface. ix 
 
 also furnished him with the opportunity of startHng London and the world with 
 a long series of oihex facsi?nile letters, some of them more "damning" even 
 than the first. This one, for example, read out by the Attorney-General in 
 his address to the jury, July 4, 18S8 : — 
 
 9/1/32. 
 Dear E., 
 
 ^^'hat are these fellows waiting for ? This inaction is inexcusable ; our best men are 
 in prison, and nothing is being done. 
 
 Let there be an end of this hesitencj-. Prompt action is called for. 
 
 You undertook to make it hot for old Foster and Co. Let us have some evidence of your 
 power to do so. 
 Mj' health is good, thanks. 
 
 Yours verj' truly, 
 
 Chas. S. Parnei.l. 
 
 " Dear E." meant Patrick Egan. In January, four months before the Phcenix 
 Park murders, Mr. Parnell was in Kilmainham. ^Vell might the Attorney- 
 General say, as he solemnly read out the letter in court, " If it was signed by 
 Mr. Parnell, I need not comment upon it." Sir Richard Webster also made 
 the interesting announcement that the ^x-sX facsimile letter was in The Times' 
 possession for many months before publication. So also were several of the 
 other letters, of which the following, read to the jury, are examples. 
 A letter to Mr. :Nratt. Harris :— 
 
 24 Feb., '81. 
 My dear Friend, 
 
 Write under cover to Madame J. Rouyer, 90, Avenue de Villiers. Mr. Parnell is 
 here, and will remain for about a week. I have spoken to him about further advances from 
 the " A " fund ; he has no objections, and you may count upon him. All goes well. We have 
 met Mr. O'L. and other friends who are here, and all are agreed that prompt and decisive 
 action is called for. 
 
 Yours \y faithfull}-, 
 
 P. Egax. 
 
 " Mr. O'L." was a John O'Learj^, who had been convicted of treason-felony. 
 In February Mr. Parnell was out on parole. And the " A fund " was the 
 "Skirmishing," or Assassination fund, started in New York by O'Donovan 
 Rossa as far back as 1875 or 1876, and supported in one way or another by the 
 Fords — Patrick Ford, the editor of The Irish World, among them. 
 
 A letter useful for identification of handwriting, and, when Sir Charles Russell's 
 turn came, in the ripeness of time, for comparison between certain letters pro- 
 duced as genuine and others alleged to be forgeries : — 
 
 Paris, id June, iS8r. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am in receipt of your note of 8th instant, and am writing Mr. P. fully on the 
 matter. He will doubtless communicate with you himself. 
 
 Yours vy truly. 
 
 P. Egan. 
 
 A letter supposed to be addressed to Brennan, agitator in Western Ireland, 
 and also useful for the purposes above-named : — 
 
 iS June, '81. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 Your two letters of 12th and 15th insts. are duly to hand, and I am also in receipt of 
 communications from Mr. Parnell, informing me that he has acted upon my suggestion, and 
 accepted the offer made by B. You had better at once proceed to Dundalk, so that there may 
 be no time lost. 
 
 Yours vy faithfully, 
 
 P. Egan. 
 
 A letter to the informer Carey, who in 1883 was shot by O'Donnell. This 
 was one of the very worst of the batch read out by Sir Richard Webster. Egan 
 
X Preface. 
 
 wrote, said Sir Richard, "after consultation" with his fellow-conspirators; 
 and the getting to work meant "making it hot" — murder — for some persons 
 already selected. By " M." was doubtless meant Joe ]\Iullett, Phoenix Park 
 convict : — 
 
 25 Oct., 1881. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I have by this post sent M. two hundred pounds ; he will give you what you want. 
 When will you undertake to get to work and give us value for our money ? 
 
 I am dear Sir, faithfully yrs, 
 Jas. Carey, Esq. Patk. Egan. 
 
 With reference to the foregoing letter, Sir Richard Webster observed that as 
 soon as the informers began to speak (January, 1883), Egan fled to America, 
 and that he had " never yet returned." Then he read the letter of January 9, 
 18S2 [given in the above list], of w-hich he said that "if it cost The Times the 
 verdict, T/ie Times would not disclose " its source. Sir Richard Webster drew 
 attention to the fact that the letter was not initialed by the Governor of Kil- 
 mainham jail, the inference l^eing that it was taken out secretly. 
 
 The following letter, also useful for Sir Charles Russell's subsequent com- 
 parisons between \h^ facsimile letters and genuine ones, was said to have been 
 addressed to P. J. Sheridan, who was described as going about Ireland in 
 the guise of a priest : — 
 
 II May, 18S2. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 As I understand your letter, which reached me to-day, j-ou cannot act as directed unless 
 I_ forward j-ou money hy INIonday next. Well, here is ;^5o ; more if required. Under existing 
 circumstances, what you suggest would not be entertained. 
 
 I remain, dear Sir, yours truly, 
 
 Patk. Egan. 
 
 The Attorney-General next read the famous letter of " 15/5/82," with which 
 the town was startled on the morning of the i8th of March of the year before. 
 We shall quote only two more : — 
 
 June 16, 1882 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I am sure j-ou will feel that I could not appear in Parliament in the face of this thing, 
 unless I condemned it. Our position there is alwaj'S difficult to maintain ; it would be un- 
 tenable but for the course we took. I can say no more. 
 
 Yours verj- trulj-, 
 
 Charles S. Parxell. 
 
 June 16, 1882. 
 Dear Sir, 
 
 I shall always be anxious to have the goodwill of your friends, but why do 
 they impugn rny motives ? _ I could not consent to the conditions they would impose, but I 
 accept the entire responsibility for what we have done. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 Charles S. Parxell. 
 
 These two letters were intended to prove that the parliamentary agitation 
 was merely the public aspect, the peaceful, the respectable disguise of a con- 
 spiracy which in the prosecution of its purpose would not stop short of murder. 
 
 It is not altogether unamusing, in the light of subsequent events, to recall 
 some of Sir Richard Webster's solemn injunctions to the jury : Gentlemen, it 
 is " quite immaterial " where this letter came from. Gentlemen, we shall not 
 tell you where we got it, never, never ; if we did, it would mean murder. 
 All you have to decide, gentlemen, is whether this is Mr. Parnell's signature, 
 and to do that you shall compare handwritings; gentlemen, "the question is, 
 who wrote them, not from whom they were received." " Quite immaterial? " 
 But the spectacle of a crowded court bursting into loud laughter, and a pre- 
 
Preface. xi 
 
 siding judge gravely smiling, while one of his colleagues could hardly restrain 
 his feelings of merriment, and the other completely gave way, — all this was 
 but a short w^hile ahead. 
 
 After the Attorney-General's declaration that The Times w^ould retract 
 nothing, and the implied challenge in his admission that, if false, no grosser 
 libels were ever written, Mr. Parnell took action. On the 6th of July, the 
 day after the delivery of the verdict, Mr. Parnell, in the House of Commons, 
 formally denied the authenticity of the letters. Next came various suggestions 
 of an inquiry. ■Nlr. Parnell asked for a select committee of the House. Some 
 hot-headed members thought it would be better if Mr. Parnell were expelled. 
 At last, it was suggested from the Treasury bench, that the inquiry should be 
 entrusted to a Commission of Judges appointed by Act of Parhament. Mr. 
 Parnell jumped, one might say, at the proposal. He thought, as all the world 
 thought, that the inquiry would be limited to the question of the letters. But 
 to the surprise of a good many even on the ministerialist side, and the _ disgust 
 of the Liberals and the Nationahsts, it was to be an inquiry, not only into the 
 letters, but into ten years of Irish history. Mr. Lees, the Conservative mem- 
 ber for Oldham, clearly thought that the public attached supreme importance 
 to the letters. " If," he said, the Parnellites "can succeed in disproving the 
 genuine character of the letters, they will cause a tremendous revulsion of 
 feeling in the country. " Mr. Chamberlain, agreeing with Mr. Lees, observed 
 that ' ' to lead the inquiry off into subsidiary and unimportant matters would 
 be . . . fatal to the reputation of The Times — fatal to its success." And 
 again, "if The Times i^ils to maintain its principal charges, I do not think 
 much importance will be attached to the other charges. Any attempt, as it 
 appears to all, on the part of The Times, to put aside those principal charges, 
 or not to put them in the forefront, will redound to their discredit." Mr. 
 Justin McCarthy, and Mr. Parnell, and many others in the House of 
 Commons, and Lord Herschell in the Upper House, predicted that such a 
 reopening of the Irish question, as was implied in the Bill, would lead the 
 inquiry into interminable side issues on matters of merely political opinion — 
 about which differences wall and must prevail to the end of time. Mr. Parnell, 
 in particular, warned the House that the accusers would seize the opportunity 
 of drenching the public, so to speak, with stories of maimings, murders, and 
 outrages of all sorts — crimes, the authenticity of which theleaguers never denied, 
 the responsibility of which they indignantly repudiated, but the mere recital of 
 which must tend to prejudice the public mind against them. The Bill, however, 
 was read the second time on the 24th of July. The names of the Commis- 
 sioners were added in the committee stage. Sir James Hannen, of the Probate 
 and Divorce Division, was chosen as President of the Commission ; and w-ith 
 him were associated Sir John Charles Day, and Sir Archibald Levin Smith. The 
 Nationalists objected to the appointment of Mr. Justice Day, because they 
 thought, erroneously, as it appeared, that he was an Orangeman, and because 
 they were dissatisfied with the report signed by him in his capacity of Chairman 
 of the Belfast Riots Commission. Mr. Justice Day's name was carried by a 
 large majority. Finally, Mr. H. Cunynghame, a junior barrister, was appointed 
 Secretary to the Commission. 
 
 The Commissioners met for the first time on the 17th of September, in 
 order to arrange the order of procedure. At this sitting they directed the 
 accusers to formulate their " particulars of the charges and allegations " against 
 the accused, and then they adjourned to the 22nd of October. In the interval 
 the particulars were prepared. After stating generally that, the Land, and 
 certain other Leagues and Associations m Ireland and America formed " one 
 connected and continuous organization " for securing " the absolute indepen- 
 dence of Ireland as a separate nation " ; and that this was to be secured 
 partly by an "agrarian agitation" for the "impoverishment and ultimate ex- 
 
xii Preface. 
 
 pulsion " of the landlords, who were styled " the English garrison," the 
 " particulars " proceeded, thus : — 
 
 The organization was actively engaged in the following matters : — 
 
 1. The promotion of and inciting to the commission of crimes, outrages, boj-cotting, and 
 intimidation. 
 
 2. The collection and providing of funds to be used, or which it was known were used for 
 the promotion of and the payment of persons engaged in the commission of crimes, outrages, 
 boycotting, and intimidation. 
 
 3. The payment of persons who assisted in, were affected bj' or accidentally, or otherwise 
 injured in the commission of such crimes, outrages, and acts of bo^xotting and intimidation. 
 
 4. Holding meetings and procuring to be made speeches, inciting to the commission of 
 crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimidation. Some of the meetings referred to, which 
 were attended by members of Parliament, with the approximate dates and place of meeting, 
 are given in the schedule hereto. 
 
 5. The publication and dissemination of newspaper and other literature inciting to and 
 approving of sedition and the commission of crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimidation, 
 particularly the l7-ish IVorld, the Chicago Citizen, the Boston Pilot, the Freejuan s Jonmal, 
 United Ireland, the h-ishman, the Nation, the Weekly Xez^s, Cork Daily Herald, the 
 Kerry Sentinel, the Evening Telegraph, the Sligo Champion. 
 
 6. Advocating resistance to law and the constituted authorities, and impeding the detection 
 and punishment of crime. 
 
 7. Making paj-ments to or for persons who were guilty, or supposed to be guilty, of the com- 
 mission of crimes, outrages, and acts of boycotting and intimidation for their defence, or to 
 enable them to escape from justice, and for the maintenance of such persons and their 
 families. 
 
 8. It is charged and alleged that the members of Parliament mentioned in the schedule 
 approved, and by their acts and conduct led people to believe that they approved of resistance 
 to the law and the commission of crimes, outrages, and acts of boycotting and intimidation 
 when committed in furtherance of the objects and resolutions of the said societies, and that 
 persons who engaged in the commission of such crimes, outrages, and acts would receive the 
 support and protection of the said societies and of their organization and influence. 
 
 The acts and conduct specially referred to are as follows : — 
 
 9. They attended meetings of the said societies and other meetings at various places and 
 made speeches, and caused and procured speeches to be made, inciting to the commission of 
 crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimidation. 
 
 10. Thej- were parties to, and cognizant of, the payment of monej-s for the purposes above 
 mentioned, and as testimonials or rewards to persons who had been convicted, or were noto- 
 riously guilty of crimes or outrages, or to their families. 
 
 11. With knowledge that crimes, outrages, and acts of boj-cotting and intimidation had 
 followed the delivery of speeches at the meetings, they expressed no bond fide disapproval or 
 public condemnation, but, on the contrary, continued to be leading and active members of the 
 said societies and to subscribe to their funds. 
 
 12. With such knowledge as aforesaid they continued to be Intimately associated with the 
 officers of the same societies (manj- of whom fled from justice), and with notorious criminals 
 and the agents and instruments of murder and conspiracies, and with the planners and pay- 
 masters of outrage, and with the advocates of sedition, violence, and the use of dynamite. 
 
 13. They and the said societies, with such knov%-ledge as aforesaid, received lai-ge sums of 
 monej- which were collected in America and elsewhere by criminals and persons who were 
 known to ad\ocate sedition, assassination, the use of dj-namite, and the commission of crimes 
 and outrages. 
 
 14. When on certain occasions they considered it politic to denounce, and did denounce, 
 certain crimes in public they afterwards made communications to their associates and others 
 with the intention of leading them to believe that such denunciation was not sincere. 
 
 The "particulars" next gave a long list of persons — describing them as 
 criminals, or advocates of murder and treason — with whom the accused Mem- 
 bers of Parliament "continued to associate." The following were the chief 
 persons named : Frank Byrne, who admitted his connection with the Phoenix 
 Park murders ; Patrick Egan, Land League treasurer ; Patrick Ford, Editor 
 of The Irish World; Carey, the informer ; Tynan, or "Number One," who 
 contrived the Phoenix Park murders ; Mullett, Phoenix Park convict ; P. J- 
 Sheridan, League organizer ; John Walsh, of JNIiddlesborough, organizer of 
 the Invincibles ; J- J- Breslin, of Richmond Jail, who helped Head Centre 
 Stephens to escape ; Alexander Sullivan, of the Clan-na-Gael ; John Devoy, 
 of the Skirmishing Fund ; O'Donovan Rossa, founder of the fund. Among^ 
 the ladies named were Miss Parnell, and Miss Reynolds (now r^Irs. Delahunt), 
 
Preface. 
 
 xiu 
 
 *' Members of the Ladies' Land League who paid for the commission of crime." 
 The Members of Parliament against whom the charges were to be proved 
 
 Thomas Sexton 
 Joseph GilHs Biggar 
 Joseph Richard Cox 
 Jeremiah Jordan 
 James Christopher Flynn 
 WilHam O'Brien 
 Dr. Charles K. D. Tanner 
 Wilham J. Lane 
 James Gilhooly 
 Joseph E. Kenny- 
 John Hooper 
 Charles Stewart Parnell 
 Maurice Healy 
 Tames Edward O'Doherty 
 Patrick OHea 
 Arthur O'Connor 
 Michael McCartan 
 John J. Clancy 
 
 Sir G. H. Grattan Esmonde, Bt. 
 Timothy D. Sullivan 
 Timothy- Harrington 
 William H. K. Redmond 
 Henry Campbell 
 Patrick J. Foley 
 Matthew Harris 
 David Sheehy 
 John Stack 
 Edward Harrington 
 Denis Kilbride 
 Jeremiah D. Sheehan 
 James Leahy 
 "Patrick A. Chance 
 Thomas Quinn 
 
 Dr. Joseph Francis Fox 
 Michael Conway 
 Luke Patrick Hayden 
 William Abraham 
 John Finucane 
 Francis A. O'Keefe 
 Justin McCarthy 
 Timothy M. Healy 
 Joseph Nolan 
 Thomas P. Gill 
 Daniel Grilly 
 John Deasy 
 John Dillon 
 James F. O'Brien 
 Patrick O'Brien 
 Richard Lalor 
 James J. O'Kelly 
 Andrew Commins 
 Edmund Leamy 
 P. J. O'Brien 
 Thomas Mayne 
 John O'Connor 
 Matthew J. Kenny 
 Jasper D. Pyne 
 Patrick Joseph Power 
 James Tuite 
 Donal Sullivan 
 Thomas Joseph Condon 
 John E. Redmond 
 John Barrj- 
 Garrett ]Mich. BjTne 
 Thomas P. O'Connor 
 
 Finally, the "particulars" gave a list of 310 meetings, at which the 
 Nationalist members above mentioned delivered speeches which, according to 
 the accusers, caused "crimes, outrages, boycotting, and intimidation." These 
 speeches were principally delivered in Galway, Kerry, Roscommon, Tipperary, 
 Wexford, Limerick, Mayo, Cork, Clare, and Waterford. 
 
 The first regular sitting of the Commission was held on the 22nd of October. 
 The counsel for The Tiuies were Sir Richard Webster, Q.C., ALP. , Attorney- 
 General ; Sir Henry James, Q.C., M.P. ; Mr. Murphy, Q. C ; and Mr. W. 
 Graham, all of the English bar: and of the Irish bar, Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., 
 and Mr. Ronan. Sir Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. Asquith, M.P., appeared 
 for Mr. Parnell; Mr. Reid, Q.C., M.P., Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., M.P., Mr. 
 Hart, Mr. A. O'Connor, M.P. (himself one of the accused), Mr. A. Russell 
 {son of Sir Charles Russell), and Mr. T. Harrington, ]SLP. (another of the 
 accused), appeared for the other persons charged — excepting Mr. Biggar, M. P., 
 and Mr. Harris, who appeared in person ; and Mr. Chance, who was defended 
 by Mr. Hammond, a solicitor. Mr. Michael Davitt also came to defend 
 himself. 
 
 P.S. — Though written in court, or from notes taken there, the first eight 
 articles of the following Diary did not appear in The Daily Nexus. In reprint- 
 ing the others, some have been shortened, and a few expanded. 
 
 London, 
 Nov. 29, 18S9. 
 
 \_See over page for Errata. 
 

 ERRATA. 
 
 
 
 ypor Beatty .... pa 
 
 Lge i8 read Beattie. 
 
 
 ,, Gallagher . . 
 
 , 62 
 
 , Kelleher. 
 
 
 \y 
 
 , Charlston . . . , 
 
 21 
 
 y Charleton. 
 
 
 '• 
 
 , CoUetty ... 
 
 . 36 
 
 . Culloty. 
 
 
 ^/ 
 
 , Coonahan ... , 
 
 53 
 
 , Cournihan, 
 
 
 
 , Courcey ... , 
 
 . 36 
 
 , Coursey. 
 
 
 
 , Dark green . . 
 
 I 
 
 , Dark. 
 
 
 
 , Flannergan . . 
 
 . 29 sp 
 
 ell Flanagan. 
 
 
 
 , Freeney ... , 
 
 . 75 
 
 , Freely. 
 
 
 
 , Heagney ... 
 
 . 23 
 
 , Heagley. 
 
 
 
 , Lennard ... 
 
 39-42 
 
 , Leonard. 
 
 
 
 , Leonard, Mike . , 
 
 23 
 
 , Lennard, Matth 
 
 s\v 
 
 
 , Lubie 
 
 , 121 
 
 , Lubv. 
 
 
 
 , McArdell . . . 
 
 - 78 
 
 , McArdle. 
 
 
 
 , Macauliffe . . 
 
 , 82 
 
 , McCall. 
 
 
 
 , Sandys .... 
 
 . 108 
 
 , Sanders. 
 
 
 
 ,. Slack .... , 
 
 , III 
 
 „ Slacke. 
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 FIRST DAY. 
 
 October 22, 1888, 
 
 The Attorney - General's opening speech declares the Land League and 
 National League (which was the Land League under another name) to 
 be a criminal conspiracy, with separation as its aim, and crime as one of 
 its means. — The League only the open or public form of an organization 
 of which Fenians and Imincibles constituted the secret executive. From 
 1879 leaguers in and out of Parliament delivered speeches likely to cause 
 disturbance ; as a matter of fact, outrages did follow the speeches ; money 
 was paid by the head League ofificials in reward of criminal acts and for 
 the defence of persons accused of crimes ; the Land League was under 
 the control of the American physical force party ; Mr. Parnell himself, as 
 certain letters attributed to him would show, was in close association 
 with the party of violence. During this first day, the Attorney-General 
 quoted speeches of Mr. Matt Harris, Mr. Dillon. Clare, Mayo, Cork, 
 Kerry, Galway were the counties to which he would confine his 
 survey 
 
 SECOND DAY. 
 
 October 23. 
 
 The Attome3'-General continues his quotations of speeches delivered in Mayo, 
 Kerry, Galway. Most of these speeches appeared to have been directed 
 against the taking of land from which tenants had been evicted. — Land- 
 grabbers compared to Judas Iscariot. Other epithets of the land-grabber. 
 Mr. Harrington advising people to avoid the grabber as they would a 
 small-pox patient. — Attorney-General says that he himself never attached 
 a vast amount of importance to ih^ facsimile letters, though The Times 
 had done its utmost to satisfy itself of their genuineness 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 October 24. 
 
 Mr. Parnell arrives in court in time to hear the Attorney-General's account of 
 the Phoenix Park murder. — The Attorney-General produces \h& facsimile 
 letter of the 15th of May, 1882, and passes it on to the Commissioners. — 
 The Attorney-General says that the very wording of the Kilmainham 
 treaty correspondence shows that Mr. Parnell could have put down 
 disturbance and outrage whenever he chose. — He compares crime 
 statistics before the establishment of the League with the statistics of 
 crime after it 
 
 PAGE 
 
xvi Contents. 
 
 FOURTH AND FIFTH DAYS. 
 
 October 25 and 26. 
 
 The Attorney-General summarizes briefly the American part of his case. He 
 says the Land League was American in origin ; attributes its paternity 
 to Patrick Ford rather than to Mr. Davitt. Says that in Irish contempo- 
 rarj' agitation the tenant is the victim, whereas in the agitation of the 
 past it used to be the landlord. — Historical implication in the Attorney- 
 General's five days' speech ... ... 
 
 SIXTH DAY. 
 
 October 30. 
 
 The first witness in the Parnell Commission trial enters the box. His name 
 Bernard O'Malley, of the Irish Constabulary. He "proves " numbers of 
 speeches referred to by Sir Richard Webster in his opening address. He 
 reads the speeches of which he took notes, while Sir Henry James checks 
 him. O'Malley is unintelligible. President despairs of understanding 
 him. Therefore Sir Henry reads while O'J^Ialley checks. — Messrs. 
 Biggar, Healy, and Davitt protest against extracts without context. 
 Mr. Biggar bluntly states Sir Henry's object is to get his accusing 
 extracts into the newspapers. Second witness appears in person of 
 Constable Irwin ... ... 
 
 SEYENTH DAY. 
 
 October 31. 
 
 A day of surprises. Captain O'Shea is " sprung upon " Sir Charles Russell, 
 because Captain O'Shea must start for the Continent. And Captain 
 O'Shea produces Mr. Chamberlain's Kilmainham treaty memorandum 
 never before published. — Kilmainham treaty correspondence showing 
 how Mr. Parnell held that without an Arrears Act Ireland could not be 
 pacified. — " I am not expert," said Captain O'Shea; but he thinks the 
 facsimile signatures to The Times letters are Mr. Parnell's. — Captain 
 O'Shea says Houston and Mr. Chamberlain were his intermediaries with 
 The Times. — Laughter in court when Captain O'Shea describes how he 
 burnt all his Kilmainham documents, after a hint from Sir W. Har- 
 court. — Effect of the Phoenix murders on Mr. Parnell's health.— Captain 
 O'Shea says Mr. Parnell wished to retire from political life 
 
 EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 November i. 
 
 Most important and interesting evidence by Irwin and O'Malley, of the 
 Irish Constabulary. Irwin thinks the only reason why police are un- 
 popular is because they take part in evictions. Testifies to most severe 
 distress before rise of Land League. Thinks distress led to crime. 
 Declares that general drift of the Land League speeches was advising 
 the people to be patient, and refrain from violence, though, he savs, 
 there were "harum-scarum" speeches at all or most meetings. Thinks 
 secret societies were hostile to the Land League. — Mr. Davitt's dehiii as 
 a cross-examiner.— O'Malley declares the landlords were indifferent to 
 the distress of their tenants 
 
Contents. xvii 
 
 NINTH DAY. 
 
 November 6. 
 
 PAGB 
 
 Sir Richard Webster brings before the Court a case of alleged contempt by 
 an evening paper. — Sir Charles Russell, on the other hand, points out 
 that T/ie Times still advertises what it calls "Mr. FaxnelV s /acsi?/tile 
 letters." — Mr. Ives, the special correspondent, New York Herald, states 
 that in 1879, o^ ^ voyage to America, Mr. Parnell described the Land 
 League as a political school for the Irish people. He says he witnessed 
 widespread distress in Ireland during the period of the Land League, — 
 Rafferty, a witness, assailed by fifteen moonlighters, does not attribute 
 the attack upon him to the League. — Refusal to supply a coffin to a boy- 
 cotted family 15 
 
 TENTH DAY. 
 
 November 7. 
 
 Still in county Gal way. Constables depose to the state of the " hot " district 
 of Woodford in the years preceding and following the foundation of the 
 League. Mournful story of the murder of Finlay, the process-server, 
 and of his mock funeral. A constable says that "Dr. " Tully, a pro- 
 minent leaguer, was in the procession. — Two other constabulary wit- 
 nesses declare Galvvay and the West Coast not to have been badly off 
 before the rise of the League. — But Mr. Ives, The New York Herald 
 correspondent, describes the poverty and misery from 1879 to 1883 as 
 very great. — Hideous story of the torture of sheep by moonlighters. — 
 Bad accounts of "Scrab," a stump orator frequently quoted by The 
 Times Q.Q\xviS,€^ ... ... ... ... ... ... 18 
 
 ELEVENTH DAY. 
 
 November 9. 
 
 An amusing scene with Kerrigan, a Times witness who can't speak English. 
 Kerrigan witnessed the murder of Huddy, whose son appears as a 
 witness in the box. — Mr. Botterill, a landlord, says that the League 
 brought on the demoralization of Ireland. In cross-examination it comes 
 out that Mr. Botterill's own tenants were in receipt of public relief, and 
 that he contributed nothing to it. — Mike Lennard's tale about being 
 forced by moonlighters to say his prayers in his coffin. — Tom Connair, 
 another peasant, throws Tiines counsel into confusion by denying he ever 
 swore to his depositions... ... ... ... 
 
 TWELFTH DAY. 
 
 November 9. 
 
 In reply to Mr. Lockwood, Mike Joyce says he does not attribute the mutila- 
 tion of his sheep to the leaguers. — Mrs. Blake, of Connemara, describes 
 her part of the country as it was before and after the rise of the Land 
 League. Word combat between Mrs. Blake and Mr. Biggar— Mrs. 
 Blake greatly amused. Mr. Lockwood and Mrs. Blake on political 
 economy.— Mournful story of Mrs. Blake, of Loughrea, of the murder of 
 
 her husband. Profound impression produced upon the Court 
 
 I* 
 
xviii Contents. 
 
 THIRTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 13. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Still in county Galway. Pat Kennedy defies the lawyers two full hours. 
 He is unmanageable. Thinks he is at present "kept by The Times." — 
 Mannion, an informer, says he never knew a moonlighter who was not a 
 Land Leaguer. He himself was leaguer and moonlighter. — So, accord- 
 ing to his own account, was Flaherty, another Times witness. Pluherty 
 says that eight years ago he, as a leaguer, was engaged on moonhghting 
 expeditions, authorized by the League 27 
 
 FOURTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 14. 
 
 Mike Hoarty contradicts the testimony of the informers. An ex-leaguer 
 himself, he denies that his branch issued boycotting orders, though 
 boycotting was " discussed " in it. He said none of his fellow-leaguers 
 were Fenians, though he himself was. The Attorney-General goes into 
 the history of the National League in the Woodford district 29 
 
 FIFTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 16. 
 
 Lady Mountmorres. She says the tenants began to grow rude and insolent 
 as soon as the leaguers appeared among them. Lady Mountmorres 
 sinks down in a half-fainting state. Sir Charles Russell refrains from 
 cross-examining her. — Scene now shifted from Galway to Kerry. — Sulli- 
 van, a Kerry bog-ranger, expected to denounce the League, rather blesses 
 it. Says the League took his part in a quarrel. A "scene " between the 
 Attorney- General and Mr, Harrington, when the former asked Sullivan 
 if he had been talked to in court by any of the Messrs. Harrington. — 
 The President sharply rebukes Mr. Harrington. Court adjourns. On 
 resuming, the President accepts Mr. Harrington's apology ... ... 32 
 
 SIXTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 20. 
 
 The Attorney- General brings a charge of gross contempt of Court by The 
 Kerry Sefitinel, of which the proprietor and editor is Mr. E.' Har- 
 rington. — Was CuUoty attacked because of his defiance of the League, 
 or because of his immoralities? — O'Connor, a Kerry farmer, instead of 
 condemning the League, says the League befriended him. — A series of 
 moonlight outrages.— Extracts read by defendants' counsel showing how 
 the chief Nationalist paper in Kerry denounced outrages. — Miss Curtin 
 questioned as to the murder of her father in the winter of 1885 ... ... 35 
 
 SEVENTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 21. 
 
 Their Lordships' judgment against Mr. E. Harrington for contempt of 
 Court in The Kerry Sentinel. — Miss Curtin's examination resumed. 
 She has no reason to suppose her father's murder was instigated in any 
 way by the League. Her brother gives similar testimony. Constabulary- 
 witnesses to the cruel and inhuman boycott of Miss Curtin's family. — 
 Norah Fitzmaurice's mournful story of her father's murder. The 
 
Contents. xix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 cowardice and the brutish callousness manifested by people in this 
 murder case. T/ie Keny Sentinel, chief Nationalist paper in Kerry, 
 denounces the murder. — Land agent Mr. Leonard's pre-League well- 
 behaved Ireland, and his impeachment of the League 38 
 
 EIGHTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 22. 
 
 Mr. Leonard, agent for Lord Kenmare, reappears. His wonderful memory, 
 and his inexhaustible black bag. He thinks the Arrears Bill a curse, as 
 it turned honest men into rogues. Thinks that since the birth of the 
 Land League, county Kerry has gone all wrong. Does not think much 
 of the heroic Gordon's famous letter about the misery of the Kerry 
 peasants. How Mr. Leonard's evidence was modified in cross-examina- 
 tion by Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Harrington 40 
 
 NINETEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 23. 
 
 District-Inspector Huggins gives a dreary history of five and a half years' 
 crime in Kerry. — Mr. Reid protests ; says the outrages are not disputed ; 
 wants to know what connection they have with the case. — Tim Horan, a 
 League Secretary, asking for money for persons imphcated in outrage. — 
 Huggins's lame answers to Mr. Raid's questions about his reasons for 
 identifying moonlighters with leaguers. — A Kerry cattle dealer gets 
 excited in the box. He will not undertake to blame the League for his 
 boycott. Thinks the boycott may have been owing to trade jealousy ... 43 
 
 TWENTIETH DAY. 
 
 November 27. 
 
 Two members of the Irish constabulary, Gilhooly and Davis, describe the 
 state of Castleisland district, county Kerry, since 1880. — Attribute dis- 
 turbance to League initiative. — Tim Horan's letter produced. — Davis 
 saj'S he was informed of the existence of an "inner circle " of the League. 
 But refuses to divulge his informants' names. — Davis cross-examined by 
 Mr. Asquith, Mr. Reid, Mr. Davitt 45 
 
 TWENTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 November 28. 
 
 More evidence suggestive of effect of family disputes in investigating crime. 
 — Mr. John O'Connor, M.P., whom the Attorney-General calls a " long 
 gentleman; " and his alleged riotous speeches in Cork. — Mr. Kennedy, 
 an unmanageable witness, who contradicts his depositions before 
 The Times solicitor, gives the prosecution considerable trouble ... ... 50 
 
 TWENTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 November 29. 
 
 Jeremiah Sulhvan, another witness unable to fix a moonlighting outrage upon 
 him to any persons in particular, leaguers or others. — District-Inspector 
 Crane's evidence on three districts in Kerry. Says popular demoraUza- 
 tion began with the League. Says he found where there were secret 
 societies that league branches coexisted with them. He attributes to 
 
XX Contents. 
 
 I'AGE 
 
 terrorism the difficulty he experienced in getting information. And 
 asserts that leaguers and moonlighters were in co-operation. Another 
 constabulary witness, Mr. Wright, supports Mr. Crane's statement that 
 leaguers and moonlighters co-operated. Mr. Wright and Mr. Biggar 
 on mowing machines 54 
 
 TWENTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 November 30. 
 
 Mr. Hussey's testimony about Kerry, past and present. Says that up to 
 1880, Kerry was as peaceful as any country in the world. Eviction was 
 easy in the old time. He never heard the name land-grabbing before 
 1880. Sir Charles Russell confronts Mr. Hussey with statistics of violence 
 in the peaceful period. Jeremiah Hegarty, who defied the boycotters 
 for seven years, and was prepared to defy them as long again. Mr. 
 Hegarty as a letter-writer. He is cross-examined by Mr. Davitt ... 58 
 
 TWENTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 December 4. 
 
 Cornelius Kelleper whistled at because he worked for Hegarty. — A long 
 string of inconclusive evidence. — The first priest-witness appears in the 
 box. Canon Griffin takes the landlord, agent, and constabulary view of 
 the issue. Says he fought the League "from the start." Admits that 
 vast majority of the Irish priests are on the side of the League. — The 
 informer Thomas O'Connor accuses Mr. T. Harrington of having 
 personally instigated him to intimidate, and promised him money pay- 
 ment. Says he was a member of the "inner circle" of the League. 
 Says he took part in midnight meetings. His story produces a profound 
 impression in court ... ... ... ... 62 
 
 TWENTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 December 5. 
 
 Jeremiah Hegarty's case disposed of. Dr. Tanner's description of Hegarty. 
 — The boy-secretary Walsh and his diverse careers. Walsh gives himself 
 an extremely bad character. — Mr. Buckley, the deaf witness, tries the 
 vocal powers of Mr. Graham and Sir Charles Russell ... ... ... 66 
 
 TWENTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 December 6. 
 
 Patrick Molloy first appears in court. — Burke's story of the murder of 
 Lord Mountmorres. — He implicates the local leaguers in the crime. — 
 Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, his mind becomes a blank as to 
 places and dates. Not sure if this is the year 1888... ... ... ... 69 
 
 TWENTY-SEYENTH DAY. 
 
 December 7. 
 
 Patrick Molloy tells his extraordinary stor}' of how he "humbugged" Tha 
 Times. Gives his counsel, the Attorney-General, immense trouble. 
 Amusement in court. The Attorney-General tries to make out that his 
 witness is a greater rogue than the witness will admit himself to be. 
 Cross-examined by his own counsel, Molloy is next examined by Sir 
 Charles Russell. Molloy shows great respect to Mr. Davitt ... ... 72 
 
Contents. xxi 
 
 TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 December ii. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Ann Gallagher sa3's moonlighters were dressed in black clothes like policemen. 
 —An Irish gombeen man or money lender. — " Freeing " oneself from the 
 charge of paying the landlord's full rent. A tenant whose son was 
 murdered for rent payment exonerates the League. Says the League 
 denounced the murder and approved his agreement with the landlord. — 
 But more landlord witnesses say the League demorahzed Ireland.— 
 Mysterious murder of Dillon ... .. ••• 75 
 
 TWENTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 December 12. 
 
 Miss Thompson, landlords, and Captain Boycott, praise the good old times 
 in Ireland. — Miss Thompson, however, was never called "your royal 
 honour" by the peasants of pre-League Ireland ; she says the peasants 
 became rude after the rise of the League — a body which had for some 
 time previously been " brewing in the air." — Times counsel read endless 
 articles and documents of sorts about speeches and outrages. Against 
 this, Sir Charles Russell protests, wanting to know what bearing all this 
 has upon the persons charged by The Times. Mr. Reid also protests. 
 And Sir James Hannen remarks, plaintively, that hfe is too short for all 
 these details put in by the prosecution. At last Sir Charles and his 
 brethren fall upon the expedient of declining to cross-examine upon what 
 they consider totally irrelevant evidence. Result, number of witnesses 
 dismissed without cross-examination. Readings from old files of Kerry 
 Sentinel, to which nobody listens ... ^^ 
 
 THIRTIETH DAY. 
 
 December 13. 
 
 Police-sergeant reports a speech of Mr. Davitt's, which Mr. Davitt never 
 delivered. — An agent-witness admits that he thought it prudent always 
 to carry arms with him, even in the years before the League. — Informer 
 Buckley describes his murder expeditions in association with Kerry 
 leaguers ; though at that time he himself was not a leaguer. — But he 
 does not accuse the local league branch as an organization. — Sir Charles 
 Russell cannot understand why Buckley tried to "escape," after he had 
 been simply bound over on his own recognisance to keep the peace ... 81 
 
 THIRTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 December 14. 
 
 The Attorney-General accuses Uiiited Irela7id of contempt of Court, and Mr. 
 Reid, Q C. , accuses Mr. Brodrick, Warden of Merton College. — The 
 informer O'Connor is recalled by Sir Charles Russell. His memory is a 
 blank, as regards persons, places, dates, and other essential particulars. 
 Admits Times 3.ge.n\. "forced him rather hard." Is confronted with his 
 letter in which he wrote that he must say " queer things" to get money 
 out of The Times. On the other hand, the Attorney-General reads 
 telegrams from Dublin to O'Connor, in which O'Connor was implored by 
 his friends to contradict all his evidence in chief. — Mr. Lockwood, Q.C. , 
 condoles with a lady witness, in fearing there's " only water " in what she 
 is drinking from a tumbler ... ... ., ... ... 80 
 
xxii Contents. 
 
 THIRTY-SECOND DAY. 
 January 15, 1889. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Irish People's William, in a thirty-five minutes' speech, protests against 
 the conduct of The Times in disseminating its poison (" Parnellism and 
 Crime ") in hundreds of places day by day. Mr. Reid describes Mr. 
 Brodrick's humour as "humour by affidavit." Mr. Brodrick's apology 
 is accepted by the President. — Dr. Tanner's brother praises pre-League 
 Ireland. — Another informer, named lago, says he was paid by League 
 to commit crimes ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 92 
 
 THIRTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 January 16. 
 
 The President accepts Mr. O'Brien's explanation of his motives in publishing 
 the United Irehiiid. In declaring, emphatically, that the Court had 
 nothing whatever to do with politics, the President makes a warning 
 appeal to journalists to refrain from comment calculated to embarrass 
 their Lordships' task. — Mr. lago, the informer, recalled, is asked by 
 Sir Charles Russell whether he knows anybody who would believe 
 Mr. lago on his oath. — Another informer, Delaney, of Phoenix Park 
 crime, appears. Says leading leaguers were associated with Invincibles, 
 who got money from League treasurer. Delaney describes the arrange- 
 ments for perpetrating the Phoenix Park murders. Admits he knew only 
 by hearsay that leaguers were mixed up in the " hatching of the Phoenix 
 Park business " ... ... ... ... 96 
 
 THIRTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 January 17. 
 
 The informer Delaney adheres to his statement that leaguers and Invincibles 
 were in collusion. — Land agents swear to the usual proposition that the 
 League introduced dishonesty and lawlessness into Ireland. — A mass of 
 correspondence of Mr. M. Harris's, furnished by Dublin Castle, is found 
 to contain nothing not known before. In one letter Mr. Brennan 
 sympathizes with Mr. Harris in his sufferings from rheumatism 100 
 
 THIRTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 January 18. 
 
 More landlords' agents,— Mr. Young, Mr. Tyrrell, Mr. Powell, Mr. Verriker, 
 — tell the old story. — Mr. Dominick O'Donnell, a Mayo landlord, drags 
 out of her bed a woman who shams sickness. She kicks her clothes off. 
 — Captain Plunkett's reasonings in a circle. Cross-examined by Mr. 
 Reid, and by Mr. Davitt 102 
 
 THIRTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 January 22 
 
 Mr. Studdert, agent on the Vandeleur estates, repeats the general testimony 
 of witnesses of his class, — Ireland contented, at any rate peaceful, until 
 the advent of the League. — The first informer, from the League head- 
 quarters in Dublin, appears, Farragher his name. Says he received his 
 post of clerk in the head office, as reward for illegal action at Mr. Davitt's 
 
Contents. xxiii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 instigation. Says he used to carry letters, with cheques, from Mr. Egan, j 
 secretary of the League, to Mullett, one of the Phoenix Park hfe convicts. 
 
 His memory too much at fault, under Sir Charles Russell's cross-exami- \ 
 
 nation 105 -i 
 
 i 
 
 THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY. i 
 
 January 23. 
 
 Mr. Robert Sanders, landlord's son, attributes tenants' discontent to League j 
 
 incitement. But Sir Charles Russell shows the large reductions which _ ^ 
 
 the Land Court granted upon the estates which Mr. Sanders regarded .' ; 
 
 as being fairly rented. — Tobin, a professed moonlighter, describes the | 
 
 local organization of the moonlighters with its " captains ; " alleges that ■ 
 
 all the moonlighters he knew were leaguers, that he had been engaged > 
 
 on midnight expeditions, and that a League secretary paid him for his \ 
 
 services. He admits to Sir Charles Russell that he had never seen any j 
 
 of his moonlighter friends at Land League meetings 108 j 
 
 THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY. 1 
 
 \ 
 
 January 24. 
 
 Captain Slacke, one of The Times' best witnesses, finds no organization except 
 the League, to which he can attribute crime. — Sir Charles Russell shows 
 how great rent reductions on Captain Slacke's estates imphed previous 
 
 injustice to tenants : how agrarian murder ceased in Tipperary after the j 
 
 establishment of the League, though frequent there before the League \ 
 
 days : how same was true of other counties. Captain Slacke, cross- ' 
 
 examined, cannot produce proof of actual connection between crime and 1 
 
 denunciation by the League ... ... ... ... ... in | 
 
 THIRTY-NINTH AND FORTIETH DAYS. < 
 
 January 25 and 29. '. 
 
 One day spent in reading extracts from speeches which, as the prosecution 
 
 alleged, were incentives to outrage. — Mr. Hanley, a Tipperary landlord, 1 
 
 blames the League for introducing disturbance, but, when cross- ; 
 examined by Sir Charles Russell, admits that disturbance existed in 
 
 Tipperary before the League. — Sir Henry James drags in Osman Digna. 114 ] 
 
 ] 
 
 FORTY-FIRST DAY. j 
 
 January 30. 
 
 Mr. Hanley, a landlord gives evidence. Mr. Hanley keeps a battering ram 116 
 
 FORTY-SECOND DAY. j 
 
 January 31. 
 
 Further evidence on the Mountmorres murder case. — Roche, whom the 1 
 
 informer Buckley said he tried to shoot, appears as a witness. Roche 1 
 
 corroborates the story, in some particulars. Roche's account of himself ' 
 
 not wholly satisfactory. The Irish magistrate evidently thought the 1 
 
 shooting business a trifling matter "7 \ 
 
xxiv Contents. 
 
 FORTY-THIRD DAY. 
 February i. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 End of Captain Slacke's evidence. Mr. Davitt's arithmetic of the League. — 
 Enghsh and Irish constables on the worlc of John Walsh. Walsh's lost 
 bank-notes. — A little altercation between the President and Sir Charles 
 Russell ii8 
 
 FORTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 February 5. 
 
 The Attorney-General begins the American part of his case. Le Caron, 
 alias Beach, enters the witness-box. Describes how he passed from the 
 Federal army into the Fenian force. How he acted as a spy upon his 
 fellow-Fenians. How the American Fenians are organized. How Devoy 
 passed between America and Ireland. How Le Caron took sealed 
 packets to Egan and O'Leary in Paris. How Le Caron has an interview 
 with Mr. Parnell in the House of Commons. And how Mr. Parnell gave 
 him a message to the American Fenian leaders 
 
 FORTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 February 6. 
 
 Le Caron's description of the Irish-American Conventions and their secret 
 committees. Le Caron on the retaliatory policy of the "United 
 Brethren." On Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., and John O'Connor, and the 
 American skirmishing fund. Members of the Royal Irish Constabulary 
 said to be spy members of the American United Brotherhood 123 
 
 FORTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 February 7, 
 
 Le Caron describes the schisms and rechristenings among the Irish-American 
 revolutionaries. — From draper boy to Adjutant-General. — Le Caron on the 
 secret committee at Chicago last June ; the secret committee at Boston 
 in August, 1884, at which force "and no compromise" were advocated. — 
 Le Caron gives Egan's story, first about his own escape from Ireland, and 
 next about Brennan's account of how Brennan himself was aided by Mr. 
 Sexton to escape to Paris, at the time of the Phoenix Park trials. — Says 
 Egan approved dynamite pohcy.— How Le Caron, with "credentials" 
 from Egan, travelled in the Southern States. — His communications with 
 Mr, Anderson of the Home Office 126 
 
 FORTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 February 8. 
 
 Le Caron's relations with the Home Ofhce. — The Irish-American Brother- 
 hood stronger to-day than ever. — Sir Charles Russell reads Irish-American 
 circulars which show that the party of violence were jealous of the newly 
 formed " Constitutional" League. — Le Caron's enumeration of "respect- . 
 able" persons among the " U. B.'s." — Le Caron cross-examined on the 
 management of Mr. Parneli's American tour 130 
 
Contents. , xxv 
 
 FORTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 February 12. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Le Caron on O'Leary and Head Centre Stephens. — On Mr. Parnell's insane 
 
 notions. — Four sections among the American-Irish. — The spy's wages. — . 
 
 The spy votes with the majority. — Devoy's supposed letter to Le Caron, j 
 about Mr. Parnell's alleged mandate.— Mr. Parnell's last link speech. — 
 
 Number One's portrait identified 133 
 
 FORTY-NINTH DAY. '. 
 
 February 13. 
 
 Mr. Mitchell, a Scoto-Irish witness, describes his struggle with Mr. Condon 1 
 
 at Mr. Condon's shop-door. — Payment of League money to the sur- , 
 
 vivors of persons sentenced for the Phoenix Park murders 137 ' 
 
 FIFTIETH DAY. ] 
 
 February 14. I 
 
 Mr. Michael Davitt's pohcy. — Mr. Soames appears in 'the witness-box. — Mr. '. 
 
 Soames says he first saw the alleged Parnell letters at the end of 1886, '- 
 and that they were submitted to the expert, Inglis, in April, 1887. — 
 
 Letters were identified, not by direct inquiry into their source, but by , 
 comparison of their handwriting with that of other documents admitted 
 
 to be genuine 139 ; 
 
 FIFTY-FIRST DAY. \ 
 
 i 
 
 February 15. i 
 
 Mr. Soames believes that neither Mr. Macdonald nor Houston knows, even 
 
 now, from whom Pigott found the letters.— He says the expert evidence ' 
 
 is enough to satisfy him of the genuineness of the letters. — Comparison . I 
 
 of disputed with acknowledged handwriting in the witness-box. — Mr. ' 
 
 Soames says he discovered an emissary of Egan's wg,tching Pigott. — i 
 
 Mr. Macdonald cross-examined by Mr. Asquith 141 i 
 
 FIFTY-SECOND DAY. , 
 
 February 19, | 
 
 How Mr. Macdonald of T/te Times took things on trust. — How Mr. Mac- \ 
 
 donald refrained from inquiring about Pigott. — How the " Parnellism j 
 
 and Crime " writers were not asked questions. — How Houston refrained \ 
 from putting questions to Pigott. — And how Houston destroyed his 
 
 correspondence ... ... ... ... ... 143 
 
 FIFTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 February 20. i 
 
 Houston explains why he destroyed his correspondence with Pigott — How i 
 
 he refrained from investigating Pigott's story about the black bag. — He 1 
 
 refrained from inquiring who the "people downstairs were." — He borrows i 
 
 from Sir Rowland Blennerhasset and Lord R. Grosvenor — who also re- i 
 
 frained from asking questions. — Houston reproaches the editor of The | 
 
xxvi Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Pall Mall Gazette.— The Labouchere interview shakes Houston's faith. 
 — A most important document — an alleged statement of Eugene Davis's, 
 said to have been written at Lausanne, and given by its author to Pigott. 
 This statement appears to be the basis on which the whole of the 
 (alleged) forgeries rests ... ... ... I47 
 
 FIFTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 February 21. 
 
 Pigott's story of the first mention of " the facsimile letter " : How Pigott met 
 "Murphy," who unearthed "the facsimile letter," and the rest. But 
 the Paris Clan-na-Gael cannot sell without authority from America. So 
 Pigott goes to America. Returning to Paris, he buys the first batch of 
 compromising documents. Discovery of the second batch. And of the 
 third batch. Payments for them. Pigott's story of his interview with 
 Mr. Labouchere on the 24th of October ; with Mr. Lewis on the 25th of 
 October ; and of his sworn declaration to Houston on the 5th of No- 
 vember. — Sir Charles Russell's cross-examination begins. Sir Charles 
 asks Pigott to write some words. Pigott admits he wrote to Dr. Walsh 
 on March 4, 1877. — Pigott begins to fall into hopeless confusion ... 150 
 
 FIFTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 February 22. 
 
 Pigott's correspondence with the Archbishop of Dublin— saying he did not 
 believe in the authenticity of the alleged Parnell letters, and denying that 
 he ever had anything to do with the discovery of \!aQ. facsimile letters. — Sir 
 Charles Russell produces Pigott's correspondence with Egan in 1881. 
 Pigott trying to blackmail Egan. — Sir Charles points out similarities be- 
 tween alleged forgeries and letters admitted to be genuine. The word 
 " hesitency." — How Pigott tried to blackmail ISIr. Forster. Mr. Wemyss 
 Reid produces the Pigott- Forster correspondence in court. — Sir Charles 
 Russell asking Pigott how he would forge a letter. — Laughter and excite- 
 ment in court ... ... ... ... ... 15^ 
 
 FIFTY- SIXTH DAY. 
 
 February 26. 
 
 The Court waits for Pigott. — The Attorney-General announces that Pigott has 
 run away. — Sir Charles Russell's wrath — "a foul conspiracy." — The 
 judges issue a warrant for Pigott's arrest. Sir Charles Russell an- 
 nounces that Pigott made a full confession of his forgeries to Mr. 
 Labouchere and Mr. Sala on Saturday. — The President reads a com- 
 munication from Pigott's housemaid. Shannon announces that Pigott has 
 made a confession subsequently to the one made to Messrs. Labouchere 
 and Sala. In this last of his confessions Pigott says that he forged some 
 of the letters in the second and third batches, but that the first batch 
 was sold to him, as described in his evidence. — Sir Charles Russell's 
 suspicious questions to Shannon. — Mr. George Lewis's rod in pickle for 
 Pigott. — The two constables who guarded Pigott know nothing 161 
 
 FIFTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 February 27. 
 
 The last confession to Mr. Labouchere is received by Shannon from Pigott 
 in Paris, and is read out in court. — The Attorney-General withdraws 
 
Contents, xxvii 
 
 PAGE 
 
 "the letters." — Sh* Charles Russell's surprise at the lameness of the 
 apology. — Mr. Parnell's first appearance in the witness-box 165 
 
 FIFTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 March i. 
 
 Mr. O' Kelly, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Lewis, Mr. 
 Labouchere, Mr. G. A. Sala, appear in the witness-box. -^Sir Charles 
 Russell asks if their lordships will draw up a special report on the 
 forgeries. — The Attorney-General resumes the American portion of his 
 case ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 169 
 
 FIFTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 March 5. 
 
 Reasons why the President admits, in evidence, files of The Irish World from 
 May, 1880, to October, 1881. — Reading of extracts from The Irish World, 
 and of speeches by Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, Sir William Harcourt, 
 from Hansard. — The Attorney-General's references to the evidence of 
 Carey the informer ... ... ... ... 172 
 
 SIXTIETH DAY. 
 
 March 6. 
 
 Reading of extracts from The Irish World. — Caricature of a junior and his 
 witness. — Witnesses examined as to the doings of Messrs. Walsh, 
 Sheridan, Fitzpatrick, and Mr. William Redmond, M.P.— An Irish- 
 American informer says crimes were planned by leaguers ... 174 
 
 SIXTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 March 7. 
 
 Irish-American Informer Colman says he was a Fenian and Land Leaguer, and 
 associated with Land-Leaguer Macaulay in planning and attempting 
 outrages. — But all the murderous expeditions of Colman and Macaulay 
 prove harmless. — Informer Colman's defective memory. — Colman's story 
 about the division of the spoil for the murder of Mr, Burke the land 
 agent. — Untrustworthy statement that Macaulay was a leaguer. — Mr. 
 Soames's alleged employment of ex-convict Walsh, in collecting in- 
 criminating documents. — Mr. Soames cross-examined by Mr. Lock- 
 wood 177 
 
 SIXTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 March 12. 
 
 Timothy Coffey, another witness who has "befooled" The Times. — Declares 
 that his statement to The Times agent was a tissue of lies from beginning 
 to end. — Declares that his secret information to Dublin Castle was also 
 a tissue of lies. — Sir Henry James catches Coffey tripping. People of 
 Coffey's imagination, who have friends in the flesh. — The President com- 
 mits Coffey for contempt of Court.— Coffey protests he warned Mr. 
 Soames that he would not give evidence. — Another Times witness, 
 Dominic O'Connor, believes that the Fenian Brotherhood were hostile to 
 Mr. Parnell 180 
 
xxviii Contents. 
 
 SIXTY-THIRD DAY. 
 March 13. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mr. Soames relates the story of his intercourse with Timothy Coffey. — How 
 Mr. Soames, once more, trusted to hearsay. — How Coffey's behaviour 
 failed to arouse Mr. Soames's suspicions.— John Leavy, an informer, pro- 
 fesses to describe the Fenian organization and the League leaders' con- 
 nection with it. — Mr. Biggar and Mr. Davitt cross-examine Mr. I^eavy. — 
 Mulqueeney, another informer, attempts to connect leaguers and In- 
 vincibles. — His testimony as to the famous hundred pound cheque paid 
 to Frank Byrne by Mr. Parnell. — Mulqueeney 's relations with Captain 
 O'Shea. End of The Times case. — Court adjourns for nearly three 
 weeks ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 185 
 
 SIXTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 April 2. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell begins his opening speech for the defence. Who are the 
 accusers? Who the accused? Ireland not a Garden of Eden before 
 1879. Sir Charles Russell's historical references to the Ireland of the past 190 
 
 SIXTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 April 3. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell continues his historical survey of Ireland. The testimony 
 of the Devon Commission. The evidence, before the Commission, of 
 Mr. Hancock, agent to Lord Lurgan. General Gordon on Kerry. Sir 
 Charles Russell's doctrine of the division of the fruits of agricultural 
 labour. Statistics of poverty and misery. Sir Charles Russell on the 
 careers of Mr. O'Brien, Mr. billon, Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt 193 
 
 SIXTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 April 4. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell's speech continued. Foundation of the Land League. 
 Objects of the League. Mr. Parnell's appeal to the Ulster people. The 
 T/wei- blinded by animosity. Sir Charles Russell on boycotting — "let 
 us clear our minds of cant." Sir Charles Russell on the contrast between 
 the Attorney-General's promise and performance. The work of the 
 Land League ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 197 
 
 SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 April 9. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell's speech continued. No proof against the Ladies' Land 
 League. The Phoeni.x Park murders dealing a fatal blow to Mr. Parnell's 
 Constitutional agitation. The rise of the National League. The National 
 partyat the general election of 1885. The voice of Ireland. The Times' 
 case " a rubbishy collection " of " trumpery " stories 200 
 
 SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 April 10. 
 Sir Charles Russell's speech continued. The Curtin murder not even 
 
Contents. xxix 
 
 PAGE 
 
 agrarian. Nor had the League anything to do with the Fitzmaurice 
 murder. Sir Charles Russell, Where are the proofs against the incrimi- 
 nated members? Against thirty of them no speeches whatever have been 
 put in. The Times heroes " Scrab " and Dr. Tully. No proof against 
 Sheridan, Boyton, Byrne, Egan. Mr. Davitt's character. Dr. Kenny 
 and the Tim Horan cheque. Mr. John Morley's charge of "infamy" 
 against The Times Constitutional character of Mr. Parnell's speeches in 
 America. Le Caron's stories 204 
 
 SIXTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 April ii. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell's speech continued. Review of the American conventions. 
 The position of Patrick Ford's paper. The Irish World. Le Caron's 
 singular omissions. The Invincible conspiracy. The " recklessness " of 
 the facsimile letters part of The Times case. Mr. Parnell's determina- 
 tion to unmask " the foul conspiracy." Pigott and his " tempter " ... 209 
 
 SEVENTIETH DAY. 
 
 April 12. 
 
 Conclusion of Sir Charles Russell's speech. His rapid survey of The Times 
 case. " Your lordships are trying the history of a ten years' revolution 
 in Ireland." " The accused are there "—pointing to the representatives 
 of The Times. "This inquiry, intended as a curse, has proved a 
 blessing" 212 
 
 SEVENTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 April 30. 
 
 Mr. Parnell is examined by Mr. Asquith. Mr. Parnell's early history. Mr. 
 Parnell once belonged to a secret society — the Foresters ! Mr. Parnell's 
 American tour managed by himself: Le Caron's account of it all imagi- 
 nary. The "last link" speech. How the I.R.B. in Ireland opposed 
 Mr. Parnell and the Land League. Mr. Parnell had never heard of 
 Invincibles until after the Phoenix Park murders. Mr. Parnell and his 
 photographs ••• 214 
 
 SEVENTY-SECOND DAY. 
 May I. 
 
 Mr. Parnell explains how the Tim Horan cheque must have been paid. 
 Lafid League office disorganized in consequence of the imprisonment of 
 parliamentary leaders. Patrick Ford's views not Mr. Parnell's. The 
 funds sent to Ireland through The Irish World. The Attorney-General 
 cross-examines Mr, Parnell. The Attorney-General on Mr. Parnell's 
 xqIqXiows \\\\h The Irish World 217 
 
 SEVENTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 May 2. 
 
 The Attorney-General's cross-examination of Mr. Parnell continued. Mr. 
 Parnell is asked about Alexander Sullivan of Chicago, and Mr. Finerty. 
 Did John Devoy help to found the Land League ? Did Mr. Parnell try 
 
XXX Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 to keep his more extreme followers in check? Mr. Parnell on Mr. 
 William Redmond. No-rent manifestos .. 221 
 
 SEVENTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 May 3. 
 
 The Attorney-General's cross-examination of Mr. Parnell continued. Mr. 
 Parnell's description of The h-ishman. Mr. Parnell on United Ireland. 
 Mr. Parnell's disapproval of physical force. Mr. Parnell on Secret 
 Societies. His " misleading " the House of Commons 223 
 
 SEVENTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 May 7. 
 
 Mr. Parnell's explanation of his "misleading" the House of Commons. 
 Mr. Parnell, bank-book in hand, answers questions about the expenditure 
 of moneys. Changes in the policy of The Irish World 225 
 
 SEVENTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 May 8. 
 
 Re-examination of Mr. Parnell by Sir Charles Russell. Land League work 
 — Ireland. League denunciation of outrage. The President requests 
 Mr. Parnell to make an affidavit of all the documents in his possession, 
 bearing on the case. Archbishop Walsh enters the witness-box. Is 
 examined by Mr. Reid 226 
 
 SEVENTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 AIay 9. 
 
 Dr. Walsh's doctrine that crime followed eviction. The League a political 
 school for the Irish people. Dr. Walsh is cross-examined by Mr. Atkin- 
 son. Dr. Walsh's opinion of Uiiited Ireland. And of The Irishman. 
 The Archbishop's "distinctions" in boycotting. He approved of the 
 form of boycotting known as " exclusive dealing " ; not of intimidation. 
 Father O' Council of Connemara. His description of Mrs. Blake ... 229 
 
 SEVENTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 May to. 
 
 The Bishop of Galway and three priests examined. Testimony to League 
 condemnation of outrage. The Bishop of Galway on West of Ireland 
 misery ; and on landlord selfishness. The Bishop thinks som.e forms of 
 boycotting are not incompatible with the Papal rescript ... ... ... 231 
 
 SEVENTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 May 14. 
 
 Witnesses' descriptions of county Galway in distress. The old story about 
 landlord selfishness. Specimens of native rhetotic. John Monaghan of 
 Connemara breaks down, as he describes the horrors of Irish famine ... 234 
 
Contents. ' xxxi j 
 
 EIGHTIETH DAY. j 
 
 May 15. •' 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Father Egan of Loughrea gives his version of the story of the murder of Mr. 
 
 Blake. The true story of the "mock funeral." One of the Woodford \ 
 
 leaders, Mr. John Roche, gives his testimony ... ... ... ... 236 \ 
 
 EIGHTY-FIRST DAY. :1 
 
 May 16. 
 
 The examination of Mr. John Roche continued. Mr. Roche on landlord 
 insolence. Mr. Roche boycotted by the landlords. Mr. Roche on 
 defendmg one's home. Another of the Woodford leaders, Mr. Patrick ; 
 
 Keary, appears in the witness-box. Mr. Keary on the spontaneous 
 organization of the tenants. Mr. Keary on the " mock funeral " ... 239 
 
 EIGHTY-SECOND DAY. ] 
 
 May 17. 
 
 Father O' Donovan of Coroffin. His testimony on poverty before the League, 
 and on landlord indifference. His knowledge of moonlighting. John 
 Hanneffy of Galway repudiates connection between the League and 
 crime. He contradicts a Tzw^j- story. Father Bodkin rejects with disgust '] 
 
 The Times theory that the moonlighters were the secret police of the 
 League. Father Bodkin denounces grabbers. Father Finneran on the 
 Attorney-General's Arcadia ... ... ... ... 241 
 
 EIGHTY-THIRD DAY. . 
 
 May 21. 
 
 Mr. Wilham O'Brien in the witness-box. His manner as a witness. On 
 
 murders and other outrages before the rise of the League. County ! 
 
 Tipperary before and after the rise of the League. Donegal before 1879. j 
 
 Peasant impression of landlord intention after the agrarian legislation 
 of 1870. Mr. O'Brien on the wholesome result of boycotting. Mr. 
 O'Brien on the history of The h'ishman and U7iited Ireland 243 
 
 EIGHTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 May 22. \ 
 
 i 
 
 Mr, O'Brien on the worthlessness of English Press reports on Irish affairs. ■: 
 
 The President intervenes between the Attorney-General and Mr. O'Brien. \ 
 
 Ireland "all Greek" to the English people. Mr. O'Brien's contempt ] 
 
 for police statistics. Objectionable paragraphs in Uiiited Ireland. Mr. \ 
 
 O'Brien on the use of such words as loyal and constitutional. On the ' 
 
 eagerness to convict Mr. Egan of complicity in the Phojnix Park crimes 245 
 
 EIGHTY-FIFTH DAY. ! 
 
 May 23. ' \ 
 
 Mr. O'Brien protests against the Attorney-General's interpretations of the \ 
 
 " re-has"hes " from other papers, which appeared in United Ireland. \ 
 
 Mr. O'Brien on the Queen and the Prince of Wales. " The Woodford j 
 
xxxii Contents. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 spirit made England what it is." Mr. O'Brien on the changed relations 
 between Great Britain and Ireland since 1885. Sham loyalty in Ireland. 
 Flags and anthems in Ireland. Mr. Gladstone in court. Mr. O'Brien's 
 distinction between English ministries and the English people. Circum- 
 stances under which an Irish rising would be justifiable. Legality in 
 Ireland. Mr. O'Brien on the Manchester Martyrs. " Hear, hear!" — 
 and the President's warning. Mr. T. D. Sullivan enters the witness-bo.x. 
 He declares that his paper, The Nation, has always supported Consti- 
 tutional agitation. Mr. Murphy, Q.C., and Mr. Sullivan's verse. Mr. 
 Sullivan on the "Manchester Martyrs." Mr. Sullivan considers the 
 grabber a " moral leper " 248 
 
 EIGHTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 May 24. 
 
 Mr. Murphy again tries Mr. Sullivan's verse. Then he tries the Land League 
 catechism. Next the news paragraphs of The Nation. The distinction 
 between news and policy. Witnesses from Miltown Malbay. Mr. John 
 Ferguson of Glasgow enters the witness-box. He knows nothing of the 
 Land League books. Violence not in Mr. Ferguson's line ... ... 253 
 
 EIGHTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 May 28. 
 
 Some of the missing Land League books found. The testimony of a Pro- 
 testant pastor. Adjournment for the Whitsuntide holidays ... ... 255 
 
 EIGHTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 May 29. 
 
 Examination of Mr. Biggar. Mr. Biggar contradicts some testimony given 
 by Times witnesses. Mr. Biggar knows nothing of the books of the 
 Land League. Mr. Biggar on his connection with the Fenian Brother- 
 hood. Mr. Arthur O'Connor describes how he found the Land League 
 offices in a state of chaos, in consequence of the imprisonment and illness 
 of leading Parnellite members .. ... ... ... ... ... ... 257 
 
 EIGHTY-XINTH DAY. 
 
 jMay 30. 
 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor's experiences of America. Mr. Arthur O'Connor's 
 connection with the Land League office. He knows nothing about the 
 books. Mr. O'Connor considers land-grabbers to be receivers of stolen 
 goods. Mr. Justin McCarthy appears in the witness-box. Mr. McCarthy 
 on Frank Byrne. Mr. McCarthy on boycotting. Mr. George Lewis 
 knows nothing about the missing books .. ... ... 258 
 
 NINETIETH DAY. 
 
 May 31. 
 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor on the Tim Horan cheque. Mr. Edward Harrington, 
 M.P., examined. Mr. Harrington on Ireland before the League. On 
 the execution of Sylvester Poff. And on the story of Herbert the process- 
 server ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 260 
 
Contents. xxxiii 
 
 NINETY-FIRST DAY. 
 June i8. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mr, E. Harrington on unjust sentences and Irish judges. He protests 
 against unfair selection from liis speeches. And complains that an 
 Irish constabulary reporter took no note of a speech which he specially 
 devoted to denunciation of crime. Mr. Harrington on peasant hard- 
 ships. Patrick Kenny, who was censured for shaking hands with Lord 
 Spencer. Father Godley on the boycott. D, F. O'Connor and his col- 
 lection of League books. Mr. Lyne on landlord harshness 261 
 
 NINETY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 June 19. 
 
 How the Central League Office in Dublin condemned the idiotic resolutions 
 of a local branch. The landlords boycotted ]\Ir, Lyne, grocer of Kil- 
 larney. Father Lawler describes famine in Arcadian Ireland. He 
 approves of the boycott which means avoidance. Father Harrington 
 on the effect produced in Kerry by the Phoenix Park murders 264 
 
 NINETY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 June 20. 
 
 Mr. T. P. O'Connor in the witness-box. His connection with the League ; 
 and his early poUtical speeches. Mr. O'Connor's American tour. Cross- 
 examined by Mr. Ronan, who grows excited over his work. Mr. Ronan's 
 " Chinese puzzle." Father O'Connor of Firies, in Kerry, gives particulars 
 about the Curtin murder ... ... 265 
 
 NINETY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 June 21. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson continues hjs cross-examination of Father O'Connor. The 
 verb to " brazzle." The leaguers cowed by the moonUghters. Mr. 
 Henry O'Connor, secretary of the Causeway branch of the League, paints 
 Informer Buckley. Dr. Kenny, M.P., in the box. He gives an un- 
 flattering account of Farragher the informer 267 
 
 NINETY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 June 25. 
 
 Dr. Kenny's mistakes about Egan's visits. Dr. Kenny on Le Caron's face. 
 Why did Dr. Kenny give a flattering testimonial to the informer Farragher? 
 — Mr. Sexton contradicts Le Caron's story ,.. 268 
 
 NINETY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 June 26. 
 
 Mr, Sexton's qualified approval of the Fenians. Why Mr. Sexton refused to 
 become a Fenian. Declines to give an answer. — Calls boycotting a 
 necessary evil. Had no recollection of Le Caron. — Mr. T. Harrington 
 on Arcadia. Denies League connection with crime ,.. 270 
 
xxxiv Contents. 
 
 NINETY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 June 27. 
 
 Father Hevvson on " duty labour." — Father Kelly denies having intimidated 
 a parishioner. Rut he admits that at a police siege of a tenant's house, 
 he may have called out " to get the hot water ready." A witness con- 
 tradicts the story of the informer boy Walsh ... ... ... ... 272 
 
 NINETY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 June 28. 
 
 Five M.P.'s briefly examined.— Reference to Mr. Biggar's Hartmann speech. 
 
 — An anti-coercion landlord 274 
 
 NINETY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 July 2. 
 
 Mr. Michael Davitt in the witness-box. Mr. Davitt on his early hfe, his 
 American tour. Thinks Mr. Parnell "too conservative." Met Le Caron 
 in America. Says Irish-Americans are content with the Home Rule 
 solution of the Irish problem. The Forrester letter 276 
 
 ONE HUNDREDTH DAY. 
 
 July 3. 
 
 The Forrester incident again. The separatist principle. The Manchester 
 martyrs. About Scrab. About grabbing. Mr. Davitt refusing to 
 answer questions 279 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FIRST DAY. 
 
 July 4. 
 
 Mr. Davitt's cross-examination continued. Denouncing grabbing stopped 
 crime. — The story of Mrs. Walsh, and of her son who was executed. — 
 Mr. Davitt condemns some of Mr. Ford's expressions. His distinction 
 between the English people and Enghsh governments ... 282 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SECOND DAY. 
 
 July 5. 
 
 Mr. Lowden examined by Mr. Davitt. Boycotting before the League. The 
 Herds' League. Mr. Lowden on the unimportant character of Land 
 League documents. Explains, indignantly, why he would give no infor- 
 mation to the police 284 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRD DAY. 
 
 July 9. 
 
 Mr. John O'Connor, M.P., in the box. His early Fenianism. Refuses to tell 
 what his relations with Mr. Devoy were. Irritation of the President. 
 Corrupting the force 287 
 
Contents. xxxv 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTH DAY. 
 July io. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mr. John O'Connor on the Prince of Wales's tour. — A long array of witnesses. 
 An infernal machine said to have been in court. Did Houston know 
 anything? 290 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH DAY. 
 
 July ii. 
 
 Another long array of witnesses. — Mr. Condon, M.P., on O'Donovan Rossa 
 
 and the Carlton Club. Mr. Condon contradicts Mitchell's story ... 292 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTH DAY. 
 
 ]ULY 12. 
 
 Mr. Hogg on the loans to Mr. Houston. — Mr. Houston on Pigott, Dr. Mac- 
 guire, and others. The I. L. P. U. books must only be seen by the 
 judges.— And Sir Charles Russell says he must re-consider his position... 294 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 July 16. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Reid, Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Asquith, and all the 
 Counsel for the defence withdraw from the case. — Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., 
 examined by Sir Henry James. — Mr. Matt. Harris's evidence 297 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 July 17. 
 
 Mr. Harris's cross-examination continued. — He knows nothing of the League 
 books. His early memories of eviction. — Mrs. Delahunt, of the Ladies' 
 Land League. — Dr. Tanner in the box 300 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND NINTH DAY. 
 
 July 18. 
 
 Mr, Harris explains why Messrs. Egan, Brennan, and himself left the Fenian 
 
 body. — Dr. Tanner on " tar-capping " 301 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TENTH DAY. 
 
 July 23. 
 
 Mr. Parnell reappears. — Land League money. — Mr. Parnell not a man of 
 business. — Mr. Parnell refuses to authorize inspection of the League ac- 
 counts in the Paris bank 302 
 
xxxvi Contents. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVENTH DAY. 
 July 24, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Mr. Moloney in the witness-box. — Mr. JMilier, bank manager, appears. — 
 Destruction of bank documents. — Phillips,, the Land League clerk. — Mrs. 
 Phillips 304 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWELFTH DAY. 
 
 July 25. 
 
 Mr. Hardcastle's testimony about League accounts. — Court adjourns until 
 
 the 24th of October 306 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEENTH TO ONE HUNDRED 
 AND SEVENTEENTH DAYS, INCLUSIVE. 
 
 October 24— October 31. 
 
 Mr. IMichael Davitt's address 307 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEENTH TO ONE HUNDRED 
 AND TWENTY-EIGHTH, AND LAST, DAY. 
 
 October 31 — November 22. 
 
 Sir Henry James's address 323 
 
 Notes 349 
 
 Index ... 351 
 
DIARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PARNELL COMMISSION 
 
 FIRST DAY. 
 
 October 22. 
 
 On the morning of Monday, the 22nd of October, 1888, the New Law Courts 
 presented an unfamiliar aspect. Some centuries on the way, they were here at 
 last — the van of a multitude of Irishmen (and Irishwomen) about to assist at 
 a unique operation of historical stock-taking. 
 
 Witnesses from every class of Irish society, the Paddy of Punch'' s shop- 
 windows, in the flesh, in his traditional costume. He wears knee-breeches and 
 woollen stockings. The style of his tall hat is unknown in Piccadilly. His 
 starchless collar of blue-striped cotton falls round his lean, weather-beaten 
 neck loosely as an aesthete's ; and the swallow-tails of his baggy dress-coat of 
 greyish brown shaggy frieze impinge upon his calves. Just as he appears at 
 mass, or on market-days — say at Galway or archiepiscopal Tuam — while he 
 waits, mutely, through the irresponsive hours, straw rope in hand, beside his 
 pig. 
 
 Peasant women from the West and South. Some, alas ! in the feathered hat 
 of fashion. Others in the more picturesque head-gear, resembling the Scotch 
 Highland inittch. One or two display the rich deep red of the Galway petti- 
 coat. For outer covering, some wear the heavy woollen shawl, broad striped 
 in whitish grey, and dark brown. But the favourite garment is the long, 
 wide, hooded cloak of deep blue. Seated, silently, with their hoods drawn 
 over their heads, on the side benches of corridors, these peasant women look 
 as if they were at somebody's wake. 
 
 The Irish priest, improved, apparently, since Thackeray sketched him, but 
 still with his downcast introspective look, feels his way among the crowd. 
 
 At the corners of passages stand little groups of stalwart men, erect, brushed, 
 polished, in dark green helmets and uniforms. Soldiers, of a sort, are they, 
 though they have never taken the Queen's shilling. They are of the ** Peeler 
 vior,'" big police, of Celtic Ireland, in contradistinction to the "Peeler beg.,'^ 
 little police — to wit, Her Majesty's troops. They are men of the Royal Irish 
 Constabulary, the finest gendarmerie in the world. When they return to 
 Ireland they will fall into the old ways of a country in military occupation. 
 They will be seen on guard at barracks ; or, rifle armed, tramping in their 
 sounding boots on the platforms of lonely country stations, and glancing 
 
 2 
 
2 Monday] Diary of [Oct. 22. 
 
 sharply into the compartments of passing trains ; or on the march to storm a 
 "fort." 
 
 There are landlords, and their agents, and district magistrates, and Crown 
 lawyers, and inspectors and their deputies, and some of the unfortunate race of 
 informers. 
 
 Vwthin — in Probate Court No. i, not an inch of standing room left by 
 half-past ten o'clock. "Michael Davitt" is whispered over the audience, 
 while a tall, dark -haired, dark-bearded man, with strongly-marked features 
 nd keen frank eyes, makes his way through the crowd to the front bench in 
 the "well" of the court. He comes to defend himself. Great need has he 
 jf defence — according to some who are present — for is he not the father of the 
 Land League ? High up in a corner sits the bard of the Nationalist Move- 
 ment, INIr. T. D. Sullivan, and opposite to him INIr. T. P. O'Connor, its 
 historiographer, Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Healy, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, ]\Ir. J- H. 
 M'Carthy, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Matt. Harris enter next, and Mr. Henry 
 Labouchere, to whom rumour attributes mysterious discoveries concerning 
 the letters. All the lawyers, in white wigs and black gowns, are in their 
 places, filling the first three benches. In the seats behind, and in the wings 
 of the court, are the reporters, the writers, the artists of the London and 
 provincial press. In the galleries, passages, and remaining seats are " the 
 public." 
 
 Mr. Parnell arrives in court at three minutes to eleven o'clock. Shaking 
 hands with Mr. Da\dtt, he has scarcely taken his seat when in comes the 
 Manager of T/ie Times, Mr. J. C. Macdonald. He and IMr. Parnell sit 
 almost shoulder to shoulder. After a little space comes the court officer's 
 cry of "Silence." And as the curtains are drawn aside the three judges 
 enter, and all the lav^yers and the audience rise. The President makes a low 
 bow. Then their lordships sit down. Next the audience. And after some 
 dry colloquial monotone about certain preliminaries, the Attorney- General 
 rises, and the greatest political trial in English histoiy begins. Sir Richard 
 Webster undertakes to prove that the League was an American-Irish con- 
 spiracy, with political independence for its object, and lawless violence — 
 including, in the last resort, assassination — as its instrument. The chief 
 obstacle against the attainment of this independence was the "English 
 garrison " of landlords. The best way to expel the garrison was to starve it 
 out. And the best way to starve it out was to confiscate its rents. But the 
 Irish peasant, with his ineradicable "land-hunger," would himself as soon 
 starve as withhold any rent payment upon which his tenure depended. There- 
 fore the League must coerce, by intimidation, by boycotting, by murder, all 
 who, to escape eviction, or to occupy farms from which others had been 
 evicted, pay rents exceeding the League limit. ^Yhence it followed that the 
 League conspiracy was, in the first resort, and principally, a war upon the 
 tenants ! In militar}'^ phraseology, the landlord stronghold was the League's 
 *' objective" in the social war; but between it and its assailants were the 
 multitudes of tenants who held their lands on condition of supplying the 
 garrison, and who would gladly go on supplying, for the sake of a quiet life. 
 If these multitudes of tenants were unanimous for non-supply, the garrison 
 would speedily enough be starved out. But Sir Richard Webster's case was 
 that no such unanimity existed. Wherefore, a panic must be created in the 
 mass of the Irish peasantry — the panic of a camp wherein lurks an enemy. If 
 an assassin is given carte blanche in a crowd, everyone in it stands his calculable 
 chance of being hit. The single assassin is a host in himself : a blunderbuss 
 on the safe side of a ditch is worth a battery. And so the success of the 
 League meant this, and only this, said Sir Richard Webster — the success of 
 its "underground movement," the success of the cattle-maimers, house- 
 breakers, boycotters, murderers, who executed the secret orders of the " Open 
 
Monday] the Parnell Commission. [Oct. 22. 3 
 
 Organization " which had its head offices in Sackville Street and its leaders 
 in Parliament. The Land League, as known to the public, was the re- 
 spectable, the "Constitutional" screen behind which the terrorists did their 
 work. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster's detailed proof, or evidence, of the foregoing general 
 charge may be arranged under the following heads. 
 
 Firstly, he undertook to show, from newspaper and police reports, that in 
 and from 1879 onwards the parliamentary leaders of the League, the League 
 organizers in the West and South of Ireland, and other officials of the League 
 — whether of the Central Office or of the local branches — were constantly 
 delivering speeches which were a more or less direct incentive to violence 
 against all who refused to obey League law. 
 
 In the second place, he would show that the outrages which followed 
 these speeches were attributable to the speeches ; that, in other words, the 
 sequence was not merely one of time, but of cause and effect. In this part of 
 his proof he would rely to a large extent, if not principally, upon the 
 "negative" evidence, that, as he said, the League speakers never took the 
 trouble to denounce outrages — not even the outrages which followed their 
 individual speeches. Thirdly, he would prove, from the League bank books 
 and other documents, how money was paid by the Central Office in Dublin 
 to branches throughout the country, for the remuneration of moonlighters and 
 assassins, and of counsel and solicitors employed to defend leaguers under 
 trial for crime. It would be proved, from documentary evidence, such as T/ie 
 Times "letters," that the collusion between the League chiefs and the local 
 branches was maintained even when the former were in prison. In the 
 fourth part of his speech Sir Richard Webster would prove, from the record 
 of the expeditions of Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Dillon, and others to 
 America, and from the story of the Irish-American Conventions held between 
 the years 1879 and 1886, that the Irish League was under the control and in the 
 pay of the American-Irish dynamiters. In final elaboration of his evidence 
 Sir Richard Webster would go into the history of the rise, and progress, and 
 management — open and secret — of the Land League ; and then proceed to show 
 how the National League, founded in 1884, was nothing else but the re- 
 christened Land League which was suppressed in October, 1882. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster's speech, of which the foregoing was the general plan, 
 lasted five days. The portion of Ireland surveyed by him was restricted to the 
 five counties of Mayo, Galway, Clare, Kerry, and Cork. The Galway speeches 
 and outrages were disposed of in the first day. As a specimen of the inflam- 
 matory oratory to which he attributed the eighteen murders which took place 
 in Galway during the years 1880-82, Sir Richard Webster quoted the 
 renowned "partridge" speech of Mr. M. Harris. The heroes of the Galway 
 movement were — to judge from the frequency of the Attorney-General's 
 allusions to them — Mr. Matt. Harris, and a certain Mr. Nally, more familiarly 
 known as " Scrab." 
 
 And there was a dangerous agitator, Martin, who was as fond of sport 
 as Mr. Harris himself, for he told his hearers that they ought to hunt the 
 land-grabber as they would a mad dog. In another of his denunciatoiy speeches 
 Mr. Harris compared landlords to tigers, and to that speech the Attorney- 
 General attributed a murder which took place some twelve months afterwards. 
 He quoted a speech of Mr. Dillon's, to the effect that " the only way to break 
 down the power of landlordism, and to reduce rack rents, was to maintain the 
 rule by which a man who goes and takes land and treats with the landlord is 
 looked upon as a traitor." Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt seemed wholly uncon- 
 cerned, Mr. Macdonald, of T/ze Times, who sat within a yard of them, nodded 
 and smiled as the Attorney-General denounced what he regarded as the villainy 
 of the Land League. " If," exclaimed Sir Richard Webster, vigorously slapping 
 
4 Tuesday] Diary of [Oct. 23. 
 
 his pile of blue books — *' if Mr. Harris did not intend his speeches to lead to 
 crimes, why did he not denounce crime ? why did he not say he would have 
 nothing to do with constituents who permitted such things in their midst ? " In 
 quoting Erse, Sir Richard nearly came to grief. He struggled with, but finally 
 mastered somehow, the expression thiggin dhic, which the League orators often 
 used in their speeches, which literally means "Do you understand?" but which, 
 under the circumstances, he translated "Don't nail his ears to the pump." 
 
 SECOND DAY. 
 
 October 23, 
 
 The Attorney-General took his audience through Kerry and Alayo. As Mr. 
 Harris was the Parliamentaiy hero in Galway, so Mr. Harrington was the hero 
 in Kerry. It was Mr. Harrington who said that land-grabbers should be 
 shunned as if they had small-pox. That was a specimen of a kind of oratory, 
 thought the Attorney-General, of w^hich it was "impossible to exaggerate the 
 wickedness." He also quoted Mr. Biggar, as having said at a meeting, that 
 *' public opinion should be brought to bear " upon any who was " base enough " 
 to take a farm from wdiich another had been evicted. " Cut the land-grabber 
 in every way," said a priest, "shun him," "ostracize him," he will "rot" 
 under such a display of public opinion. The mention of Kerry moonlighting 
 moved Sir Richard Webster once again most vehemently to accuse the League 
 leaders of having negatively encouraged crime by refraining from denouncing 
 it. And then he passed on to ]\Iayo, requisitioning " Scrab " for a sporting 
 quotation about "jackdaws and magpies," to match Mr. INI. Harris's 
 *' partridges" and "Bengal tigers." It was noticeable that most of the 
 speeches referred to by Sir Richard Webster turned upon the subject of land- 
 grabbing. One speaker, not a Member of Parliament, declared that the 
 "land-grabber resembled Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Christ." Another 
 League speaker, also non-parliamentary, was reported to have said that the 
 man who took an evicted farm was ' ' a greater assassin than the man who fired 
 a pistol shot." It seemed as if the strongest language came from the persons 
 who were least responsible and most obscure. Thus " Scrab " (whose orations 
 were so much in demand) was reported to have said that "pills" (bullets?) 
 were inferior, as an agrarian medicine, to dynamite and gun-cotton. A collec- 
 tion, from Sir Richard's speech, of the e^Dithets hurled at the head of the 
 unhappy grabber would show how the impulsive, perfervid Celt must have 
 laboured under the pressure of his rhetorical steam. The land-grabber was a 
 "louse," the land-grabber was a " rapacious beast," he was a "low-life cur," a 
 *' reptile," a " putrid companion." Of the numerous speeches quoted by the 
 Attorney-General, and advising tenants to "cut" the grabber always and 
 everywhere — in chapel as well as in the street — w^e may mention Mr. Parnell's 
 speech at Ennis, in September, 18S0 : "I think I heard cries of ' Shoot him ! ' 
 but I think I know a better way, which will give the lost sinner a chance 
 of repentance. You must shun him when you meet him in the streets of the 
 town, in the fair or market-place, or even in the house of worship itself, by 
 leaving him severely alone, by putting him into a moral Coventry, by isolating 
 him as if he were a leper of old." But all this, whatever its value as evidence, 
 was threadbare history. Gradually Sir Richard Webster's audience grew tired, 
 and half the unofficial portion of it stealthily took its departure. The one lady 
 left in the side gallery looked like patience on a monument. The President 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission, [Oct. 24. 5 
 
 was ever on the alert. But after a time Mr. Justice Day yawned. Then he 
 shrugged his shoulders. Then he stretched his legs. Mr. Justice Smith, 
 dropping his pen, leant back, and seemed to fall into what is called a brown 
 study. Some of the juniors amused themselves with sketching caricatures of 
 their seniors. "Silence!" quoth the usher, drowsily, tapping his snuff-box, 
 for among the lawyers, and the journalists, and the rest there arose a buzz 
 of conversation about things in general. 
 
 As the purpose of these preliminary chapters is to indicate Sir Richard 
 Webster's general line of argument, I need not follow him in his search 
 after speeches and outrages throughout the remaining counties, except to 
 say that he attributed to Land League speeches the six murders and the 
 eighteen attempts at murder which took place in Clare in 1881-83. He 
 touched upon the No Rent manifesto, because he regarded it as the text upon 
 which the League organizers, the criminal agitators outside, framed their 
 popular discourses during the imprisonment of Mr. Parnell and other leaders 
 of the party. For a similar reason Sir Richard Webster made a passing 
 reference to two of The Times "letters," one of them being an alleged letter 
 from the Land League secretary, Mr. Egan, in Paris, to Carey in Dublin, in 
 which the writer asked, "When will you undertake to get to work and give us 
 value for our money? " and the other being the alleged letter of Mr. Parnell, 
 in which the writer asked what "those fellows" were " waiting for," recom- 
 mended an end to "this hesitency," spoke of making it " hot for old Forster." 
 At this mention of a letter upon the authenticity or spuriousness of which so 
 much depended, the Attorney-General's hearers became attentive. He must 
 have given some of them food for reflection when, having stated that The Times 
 people had instituted " every possible inquiry" into its genuineness, he remarked 
 that for his own part he had never attached " such a vast amount of importance " 
 to the letter. 
 
 THIRD DAY. 
 
 October 24. 
 
 Mr. Parnell, who looked pale and ill, came in just in time to hear his sup- 
 posed relationship with the Phoenix Park assassins, and his supposed authorship 
 of the famous ^'■facsimile letter" of May 15, 1882, discussed, in the frankest 
 language, by the Attorney- General. Putting down his black bag, and putting 
 up his coat collar (against the draughts which defy Mr. Street's architecture), 
 INIr. Parnell turned half round, to hear himself summed up with all the Attorney- 
 General's candour and ruthless decorum. A quiet smile stole over Mr. 
 Parnell's face as the Attorney-General, having read out the letter of the 15th 
 of May, 1882, handed it to the President for his lordship's inspection. Sir 
 James Hannen, studying it carefully for a minute or two, handed it to Mr. 
 Justice Day, who in another minute or two passed it on to ]\Ir. Justice Smith. 
 This little scene was watched by the two men most concerned in it — by Mr. 
 Parnell with an expression of amused curiosity, by Mr. Macdonald, of Tlie 
 Times, with the not unnatural pride of one who had accomplished the most 
 notable journalistic feat of the centuiy. 
 
 The facsimile letter was produced in continuation of the special topic of the 
 preceding day's business — namely, the connection of the Central League Office 
 and its chiefs with the local branches of the "conspiracy" and the physical 
 force party in America. Turning to the " Kilmainham treaty," Sir Richard 
 Webster argued that its very terms implied that ]\Ir. Parnell, if he had liked, 
 
6 Thurs., Friday] Diary of [Ocf. 25, 26. 
 
 could long ago have stopped outrage. " If," said Sir Richard Webster, " jNIr. 
 Parnell says he did do his best to put it down, I shall ask him, when he enters 
 the witness-box, what he did before the date of the Phoenix Park murders, 
 May 6, 1882. Captain O'Shea will testify," he continued, " that Mr. Parnell 
 unwillingly signed the manifesto in which the murders were denounced. Cap- 
 tain O'Shea's testimony will also show that Mr. Parnell could have stopped 
 outrage, treaty or no treaty. Mr. Parnell objected to doing anything that would 
 displease the Irish-American party of violence, from which the League derived 
 all its wealth, "Why, that facsiinile letter, in which Mr. Parnell apologized 
 for — or explained — his signature to the manifesto, was," Sir Richard Webster 
 maintained, "the precise kind of letter which he would have written under the 
 circumstances." Sir Richard wound up his day's work wdth a reiteration of his 
 proposition, that crime varied directly as the influence of the League. In 
 illustration of this proposition, he said that in the whole of Ireland there were 
 twenty murders during two and a half years ending with the establishment of 
 the Land League, and fifty murders during the corresponding period imme- 
 diately following it; that in 1883-84, the period of League inactivity under 
 the Crimes Act, there was only one murder ; but that murders increased, again, 
 in 1885-87, when there was no Crimes Act in force. 
 
 FOURTH AND FIFTH DAYS. 
 
 October 25 and 26. 
 
 First, the outline of the American part of The Times case, including American 
 influence upon the Irish Land League, and next, a review of the history of the 
 National League (the organization which succeeded the Land League) occupied 
 the fourth and fifth days. On the fourth day the Archbishop of Dublin sat in 
 the jury-box, and was, to all appearance, considerably impressed by wSir Richard 
 Webster's account of the genesis of the Land League. Mr. Davitt, also, must 
 have been considerably impressed ; for it would seem as if the Attorney- 
 General meant to rob him of the glory of paternity of the Land League. 
 Anyhow, Mr. Davitt glanced quickly, now and again, at the Attorney-General, 
 and smiled at his interpretation of Irish-American history. Up to that moment 
 the world had been under the impression that INIr. Davitt was the father of the 
 League. But in Sir Richard Webster's view the real father was Patrick Ford, 
 of The Irish Woj'Id. However, Sir Richard subsequently admitted that 
 Mr. Michael Davitt did start the League in Ireland. Mr. Davitt went to 
 America in 1878, and there and then arranged with IMr. Ford his plan of an 
 organization for starving out the " English garrison" in Ireland — namely, the 
 landlords. In the course of the evidence which he would produce the Attorney- 
 General would show that the Irish leaders conspired with the leaders of 
 the " American section," the members of which were advocates of communism, 
 assassination, and other outrages of the worst sort. " It was in collusion with 
 the American leaders," said the Attorney-General, "that the League introduced 
 a method of illegal agitation before unknown in Ireland ; for in other times the 
 landlord used to be the victim of agrarian outrage, whereas now the victim was 
 to be the tenant who accepted his landlord's terms." From the foundation of 
 the League in Ireland, Sir Richard Webster passed on to the foundation of the 
 American branch by INIr. Parnell, and Mr. Parnell's American tour in 1879-80, 
 and an elaborate account of the American Conventions from 18S0, and of the 
 speeches made and the resolutions passed at them. As specimens of these 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [Oct. 30. 7 
 
 speeches may be produced in the course of the American evidence, no further 
 reference will be made to the subject here. 
 
 On the fifth and last day of his speech Sir Richard Webster reviewed the 
 history of the National League. His method was the same as the one he 
 followed in his history of Land League work ; he quoted speeches, and enume- 
 rated outrages which he maintained to have been caused by them. He traversed 
 the old ground — Kerry, Cork, Clare, Galway, and Mayo. The same old orators 
 were run out again, in all their hot wrath, with all their ready wealth of zoolo- 
 gical, entomological, and pathological imagery — -Nally among the rest. Which 
 Nally? *'Scrab"? Or the other Nally? It mattered not, for both con- 
 spired. Long before Sir Richard Webster finished his discourse, the President 
 asked him, in mild remonstrance, whether he did not think that, without 
 going over another county, he had given "sufficient intimation of his line 
 of argument." But Sir Richard plodded away — ohiie hast okfie vast — through 
 the leaden hours. Just on the stroke of four o'clock Sir Richard Webster 
 aroused the attention of his hearers by announcing that in all probability wit- 
 nesses would appear who themselves had taken part in murderous expeditions, 
 and who would swear that they had been paid for their foul work in Land 
 League money. 
 
 Not the least important kind of evidence upon which the Attorney-General 
 relied was negative evidence. This should be constantly borne in mind by all 
 who (to quote an expression which his principal "criminal " has made famous) 
 would " keep a firm grip " upon the Attorney-General's argument. His argu- 
 ment implied — even stated — that the outrages dealt with in The Times case 
 were of a kind wholly new in rural Ireland. Before 1879, the year of the 
 foundation of the League, they were not. Nor could the Attorney-General 
 discover anything in the social condition of the country before that date which 
 would account for the crimes after it. In short, the Attorney-General's Ireland 
 was a kind of Arcadia, wherein landlords and tenants were on friendly terms, 
 wherein there were no boycottings, no moonlightings, no cattle-maimings, no 
 war against land-grabbers — any more than thunderbolts in clear weather. In 
 keeping with this theoiy of the Irish social state was Sir Richard Webster's 
 frequent assertion that IMr. Parnell and his colleagues felt themselves bound to 
 satisfy their American "paymasters." It was always the Irish abroad, not the 
 Irish at home — greater Ireland, not lesser Ireland — that must be "satisfied." 
 Necessarily, if the League agitation was a foreign manufacture. 
 
 This was the question at issue — Was, or was not, Irish outrage the harvest 
 of a soil that had been prepared for it before ever the League came into being ? 
 Were constabulary rule and plans of campaign, Crimes Acts and League pro- 
 grammes, coercion and social war, "Balfourism" and " Parnellism," the 
 variously-phased consequence of the same evil Past? 
 
 SIXTH DAY. 
 
 October 30. 
 
 On Tuesday, October 30th, at half-past eleven o'clock, the first witness for 
 The Times entered the box. Bernard O'Malley his name was, head constable 
 in the Irish force, in which he had served twenty-two years. One of the 
 constabulary shorthand writers, he was now called upon to "prove" a series 
 of Land League speeches (from 1 880) delivered in the counties of Galway and 
 Kerry. Taking a printed transcript of the speeches to be "'proved," he was 
 requested to read, while Sir Henry James, with his eye upon another copy, 
 
8 Tuesday] Diary of \Oct. 30. 
 
 followed him. Away went Mr. O'Malley as fast as he could run ; but his 
 troubles began presently. Mr. O'Malley's reading was a low, indistinct mumble 
 as of a man chewing and swallowing his words, an outlandish dialectic blur, 
 in which stray expressions about "squalor," " misery," " cabins," were faintly 
 distinguishable. 
 
 A good-humoured frown gathered on the President's face. "I cannot 
 follow him at all," said his lordship, slowly shaking his head; "I cannot 
 hear or understand what he is saying." And so Head- Constable Bernard 
 O'Malley was pulled up. Ashe stopped short he smiled, as if in healthy satis- 
 faction with his own performance. 
 
 "Supposing I read," suggested Sir Henry J^mes, "and INIr. O'Malley 
 checks me." Sir Henry proved to be a swifter reader even than Mr. 
 0']\lalley, but it was so easy to follow him. However, in a minute or two, 
 three of the accused fell (metaphorically speaking) upon Sir Henry James. 
 These three were Mr. Davitt, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Healy, who protested 
 against extracts without contexts, demanded every speech to be read in full, 
 and that Mr. Bernard O'Malley should read from his shorthand notes. Mr. 
 Biggar was very plain-spoken. Resting one hand behind his back, and 
 waving the other, carelessly, in Sir Henry James's direction, he remarked that 
 Sir Henry's object in reading his choice selection of extracts was to " get 
 them into the newspapers," so that the public mind might be "prejudiced." 
 At last the suggestion of Mr. Healy and his friends was adopted, and Mr. 
 O'Malley was requested to read from his shorthand notes. But if at first 
 Mr. O'Malley ran like a hare, he now crawled like a tortoise. To Mr. 
 O'jNIalley's audience the prospect of a laboured deciphering of years of 
 forgotten platform talk was appalling. " Is there much more of this ? " 
 inquired Sir James Hannen, in a tone of pathetic distress. Mr. O'Malley 
 took it all with cheerful composure. He paused for a moment ; he glanced, 
 slowly, sideways, at the judges on the bench. Then he raised his thumb to 
 his mouth ; he damped it ; and then he turned over, with easy deliberation, 
 the pages of his too illegible manuscript. 
 
 Here are a few specimen expressions from the speeches which, according to 
 T/ie Times case, led to outrages in the counties wherein they were delivered. 
 Brennan, in one of his speeches, declared that he did not want his hearers to 
 give the landlords a blow or a stone, but that they might do as they liked ; also 
 that the highest form of government was a Republic, and that they might 
 establish a Republic on Irish soil. " Scrab," of course, was quoted. Quoth 
 " Scrab": " Why do you allow land-grabbers to live? Don't speak to them. 
 Leave their corn and meadows uncut, and they will commit suicide without 
 the pills." ^ 
 
 Mr. Patrick J. Gordon, again, said he would be ready, if the occasion arose, 
 to fight for Ireland at the bayonet point, but he recommended his hearers to 
 try to get their rights without bloodshed. A speech of Mr. T. Harrington's 
 invited the tenants to pledge themselves not to take an evicted farm, and not 
 to hold any converse with any one who broke the pledge. It would seem as 
 if some of these speakers, in the excitement and heat of the moment, and in 
 the exuberance of their native volubility, spurted out whatever words came 
 uppermost. 
 
 For example, one of the League orators declared, ferociously, that he cared 
 not if half his enemies had " their throats cut before morning." " If you are 
 put to it," said he, "sell the old cow and buy a rifle." And yet this same 
 orator, almost in the same breath, advises his hearers to treat those enemies, 
 the hated land-grabbers included, " with contempt, to pass them by, and not 
 speak to them at the fair." With hardly an exception the speakers quoted 
 were non-parliamentary members, or friends, of the League. In one of the 
 speeches quoted by The Times counsel there were denunciations of cattle 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Oct, 31. g 
 
 maiming and personal violence. The speaker was Martin O'Halloran,^ who 
 said, "Do not touch him [any man who took evicted land]. If you do you 
 are enemies to the cause. I hope you will take that advice from a patriotic 
 man, and work it prudently. Do not summon any man before God ; 
 it might not be fair." But before Mr. O'Halloran's speech was read Head 
 Constable O'Malley left the box. The speech was "proved" by Constable 
 Irwin, who was the second and last witness of the day. Both witnesses were 
 requested to reappear for further evidence and cross-examination. 
 
 SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 October 31. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster had a surprise in store for his opponents. Instead 
 of recalling the two witnesses of the day before, he asked permission to put 
 Captain O'Shea into the witness-box. Sir Charles Russell objected to have a 
 witness "sprung" upon him — especially a witness of such importance as 
 Captain O'Shea, whom he was unprepared to cross-examine. But the 
 Attorney-General, explaining that Captain O'Shea's immediate departure for 
 the Continent necessitated his examination now, Captain 0\Shea was called, 
 and a whole day of most interesting testimony, including a political disclosure 
 or two, was the result. Mr. Parnell was in his place shortly after ten o'clock — 
 fully a quarter of an hour before the proceedings began. 
 
 The Attorney-General, after a few preliminary questions, came to the subject 
 of the Kilmainham "treaty" — the negotiations carried on between the 
 Liberal Ministry of the day (1881-82) and Mr. Parnell (prisoner in Kilmain- 
 ham), and in which Captain O'Shea was the intermediary. The Attorney- 
 General's purpose was to prove, from the history of the Kilmainham "treaty," 
 the proposition upon which he had laid main stress in his opening speech — the 
 proposition that Mr. Parnell had full knowledge of criminal acts perpetrated 
 by his associates in the control of the League and the management of the 
 agrarian agitation ; in other words, that ]\Ir. Parnell could at any time (even 
 in jail) have suppressed the criminal agitation, of which, ex hypothesis he and 
 his colleagues were the authors. " It is fair to say," remarked Captain O'Shea, 
 "that Mr. Parnell never made his own release from Kilmainham a condition 
 of the 'treaty.' " Captain O'Shea then explained that a formal memorandum 
 was drawn up on the subject between himself as representing Mr. Parnell, and 
 Mr. Chamberlain on the part of the Liberal Ministr}^ " Will you let me see 
 it ? " asked Sir Richard Webster. Captain O'Shea, emptying his coat-pocket, 
 produced the document, which Sir Richard now made public for the first time. 
 " In whose handwriting is it ? " said the Attorney-General. " In Mr. Chamber- 
 lain's " — at which answer Mr. Biggar laughed outright. The memorandum, 
 dated 22nd of April, 1882, was as follows : — 
 
 72, Prince's Gate, S.W._ 
 
 If the Government announce a satisfactory plan for dealing with arrears, Mr. Parnell will 
 advise the tenants to pay rents, and v/ill denounce outrage and resistance to law, and all processes 
 of intimidation, whether by bojxotting or in any other way. No plan of dealing with arrears 
 can be satisfactory which does not wipe them off compulsorily by a composition of one-third 
 paj-able by the tenant, one-third by the State from the Church fund or some other pubhc 
 sources, and one-third remitted by the landlord ; but so that the contribution of the tenant 
 and the State shall not exceed one year's rent each, the balance, if any, to be liquidated by 
 the landlords; arrears to be defined as arrears accruing up to May, 1881. 
 
 ^ This must be the Martin O'Halloran, carpenter, nearly Athenry, who, himself an impri- 
 soned suspect in Kilmainham, sometimes spent an hour in teaching his fellow- pi isoner, Mr. 
 Parnell, the elements of the craft. 
 
10 Wednesday] Diary of [Oct. 31. 
 
 Of no less importance than the foregoing were two other documents, now 
 produced in court — one a letter, dated i6th of April, 1882, from Mr. Parnell 
 to Captain O'Shea ; the other, from the same to the same, was dated from 
 Kilmainham, 20th of April, 1882, and was the famous letter read out in the 
 House of Commons on the 15th of May of the same year. In the i6th 
 of April letter Mr. Parnell spoke of a "permanent settlement" of the land 
 question as being "most desirable for everybody's sake." In the same letter 
 Mr. Parnell expressed the opinion that "about eight millions of pounds 
 sterling would enable three-fourths of the tenants (at or under ;^30 valuation) 
 to become owners at fairly remunerative prices to the landlords. The larger 
 class of tenants can do well enough with the Law Courts if Mr. Healy's 
 clause be fairly amended." In the letter of the 20th of May Mr. Parnell 
 impresses upon Captain O'Shea, through whom, as already said, the negotia- 
 tions were conducted, " the absolute necessity of a settlement of the arrears 
 question, which will leave no recurring sore connected with it behind, and 
 which will enable us to show the smaller tenantry that they have been treated 
 with justice and some generosity." " If," Mr. Parnell continues in the same 
 letter — "if the arrears question be settled, ... I have every confidence — a 
 confidence shared by my colleagues — that the exertions which we should be 
 able to make, strenuously and unremittingly, would be effective in stopping 
 outrages and intimidations of all kinds. . . . The accomplishment of the 
 programme I have sketched out to you would, in my judgment, be regarded by 
 the country as a practical settlement of the land question. . . . And I believe 
 that the Government, at the end of the session, would, from the state of the 
 country,' feel themselves thoroughly justified in dispensing with further coercive 
 measures. " 
 
 The above quotations from the documents produced in court should be 
 compared with the description which, in his opening speech, Sir Richard 
 Webster gave of the character and purpose of ]\Ir. Parnell's policy. There is 
 an "if" running through Mr. Parnell's share in the negotiations: "If" the 
 Government passes a satisfactory Arrears Bill, Mr. Parnell and his colleagues 
 will do their best to put down outrage, and are confident they will be able to 
 do it. 
 
 Mr. Parnell talked of compromise, talked not unkindly of the landlord 
 "garrison," the starvation of which was supposed to be the purpose of the 
 League agitation. Mr. Parnell made a passing remark on what he considered 
 to be the natural history, so to speak, of crime in Ireland, in saying that the 
 outrages were generally committed by the sons of small farmers whose rents 
 were in arrears, that is to say, of the poor, struggling class for whose relief 
 the AiTears Bill was to be introduced. In these letters and documents 
 Mr. Parnell stated, with sufficient clearness, that without an Arrears Act he 
 would be powerless to stop crime — the passing of an Arrears Act was an 
 " absolute necessity." In the course of the examination, of which the 
 "treaty" was the chief topic. Captain O'Shea said that, in Mr, Parnell's 
 opinion, Sheridan and Boyton, who were "organizers" in the West and 
 South, might be advantageously used to put crime down. Sir Richard 
 Webster held that Sheridan and Boyton were criminal agitators, and that 
 Mr. Parnell was fully aware of the fact. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster now came to the famous letter — the facsimile 
 letter published in The Times of May 15, 1882. Captain O'Shea's de- 
 meanour, as he examined the letter, now handed to him by the Attorney- 
 General, was watched by all present with intense curiosity. What would he 
 say? "Whose is that signature?" Sir Richard asked him. "I am not an 
 expert in handwriting," replied Captain O'Shea, after a long pause, looking 
 up. "I am aware of that," replied Sir Richard, "but you can tell me whose 
 handwriting you believe it to be." " I believe it to be Mr. Parnell's." 
 
Wednesday] the Par/icll Commission. [Oct. 31. 11 
 
 It was now Sir Charles Russell's time to cross-examine. At first (and for 
 the reason already given) he proposed to postpone the cross-examination. 
 But at last he went on with it, on Sir James Hannen's reminding him that he 
 might resume it at a subsequent date, and that, in the event of Captain O'Shea 
 not being able to reappear, the Attorney-General's examination-in-chief must 
 "stand.'' 
 
 Captain O'Shea described, in reply to Sir Charles Russell's questions, how 
 in August last Mr. Joseph Chamberlain and a person named Houston were 
 the intermediaries through whom he arranged to appear as a witness for The 
 Times ; how, about the date when these arrangements were going on, he 
 dined with The Times editor and Sir Rowland Blennerhasset ; and how, 
 once upon a time, he stated, on the authority of a man named Mulqueeny, 
 that some one knew of a payment of money by Mr. Parnell to Frank Byrne to 
 enable the latter to escape arrest on a charge of complicity in the Phcenix Park 
 murders. 
 
 " It was after that statement of Mulqueeny 's," continued Sir Charles 
 Russell, "that you were a candidate for Galway?" "Yes." "Then you 
 did not believe those statements about Ivlr. Parnell at that time ?" "Oh, no ; 
 certainly not." 
 
 Then there followed a long series of questions, by which Sir Charles Russell 
 elicited some facts about the witness's breach with Mr. Parnell and the 
 Nationalist party in 1886, and about his relations with a party of "extreme " 
 Irish politicians, of whom Mulqueeny was one, and who were engaged in getting 
 up a testimonial to Captain O'Shea by way of protest against his expulsion from 
 the Parnellite party. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell pressed Captain O'Shea to answer the following 
 question : " Did you tell any one in the winter of 1885-S6 that there 
 were in London American Fenians who were hostile to Mr. Parnell, and who 
 held letters compromising him?" Captain O'Shea was not sure that he 
 had said "hostile," but he admitted it was Mulqueeny who told him about 
 the presence of the American Fenians. Then he declared that, to the best of 
 his belief, he had never heard of the existence of compromising documents 
 before he saw the facsimile of the Byrne letter in The Tifues. Passing on to 
 the Kilmainham treaty, "Is it not a fact," asked Sir Charles, " that when 
 you mentioned the question of release Mr. Parnell said there must be no 
 reference to that matter at all?" " Certainly," was Captain O'Shea's reply. 
 And he gave the same answer to the next question — " Is it not a fact that, in 
 ever}- attempt made to put down outrage, Mr. Parnell referred to the proposed 
 measure of the Government — the Arrears Bill — as a means of tranquillizing 
 the country?" 
 
 Replying, next, to Sir Charles's question as to whether he had kept any 
 memoranda of the Kilmainham " treaty," he said that he had not. " How 
 is that?" exclaimed Sir Charles, in surprise. Because he received a hint 
 that, as there was a risk of a parliamentary inquiry into the "treaty," it 
 would be as well to be reticent ; and he took the precaution of destroying his 
 memoranda. At this little revelation the curiosity of the veiy crowded court 
 became extreme ; and a loud burst of laughter broke forth from the audience 
 when Captain O'Shea stated that the Minister who gave him the hint was Sir 
 William Harcourt. As to the story that Mr. Parnell wished to visit Mr. Davitt 
 in prison because Mr. Davitt was one of those whom it was undesirable to 
 release at once, Captain O'Shea now gave it as his impression, founded on Mr. 
 Parnell's words at the time, that Mr. Parnell wanted to see Mr. Davitt because 
 he feared he would refuse to accept his release on ticket-of-leave. _ Next 
 followed a string of questions about events subsequent to the Phoenix^ Park 
 murders. In his replies, Captain O'Shea declared that the murders seriously 
 affected Mr. Parnell's health and spirits, and that he (Captain O'Shea) con- 
 
12 Thursday] Diary of [Nov. i. 
 
 sidered them to be " a cruel blow " to Mr. Parncll's policy. "You consider 
 that? " Sir Charles Russell repeated. '* Certainly," was the answer. Captain 
 O'Shea further said that he in person had, after the murders, taken a letter to 
 Mr. Gladstone, from Mr. Parnell, in which Mr. Parnell offered to retire from 
 political life. As to the facsimile letter (of May 15, 1882), he first saw it in 
 The Times. " I did not think it was genuine," said Captain O'Shea, " but I 
 thought the signature was." "What made you think it was not genuine?" 
 " Well, I thought it funny that he should say, ' You may show him this, but 
 don't tell him my address.' " "It certainly is odd," was Sir Charles Russell's 
 remark. 
 
 Such was the substance of the testimony of the first of the principal wit- 
 nesses called by The Times to damn Mr. Parnell. We have now to hear 
 what the constabulary witnesses, O'Malley and Irwin, have to say on the 
 general question, the action of the League. 
 
 EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 November i. 
 
 Considering their intimate knowledge of Ireland and its people, and their 
 long experience in the constabulary service, the testimony of Constable Irwin 
 and Head Constable O'Malley was interesting and valuable in the highest 
 degree. Their testimony occupied the whole of the day. Constable Irwin 
 was a good specimen, physically, of the " Royal Irish " constable. He was tall 
 and athletic. His manner was pleasant. His answers to Sir Charles Paissell were 
 prompt and to the point. If Mr. Irwin had a fault, it was a proneness to be 
 too free and easy — not in a bad sense, but in a kindly, well-meant, man-and- 
 brotherly way. Leaning his elbows on the ledge in front of him, folding his 
 hands, and loending slightly forward, he nodded and smiled, in his pleasant 
 way, at " Sir Char-lis " (pronouncing the name in the Irish manner). "Yes, 
 Sir Char-lis," "Just so, Sir Char-lis," " Quite right, Sir Char-lis "—as if he was 
 anxious to encourage the renowned Q.C. to persevere in his arduous and 
 historic task. At last his cross-examiner became just a little irritated. " Don't 
 call me Sir Charles." " Yery well, Sir Char-lis," with a pleasant little nod, 
 and a smile. All which amused INIr. Irwin's hearers. 
 
 Mr. Irwin knew Galway, Clare, and Kerr}^, in which counties he began to 
 take shorthand reports of League meetings about nine years ago, when the 
 League agitation was beginning. He had nothing to complain of, he said, as 
 to the manner of the reception accorded to him at these meetings : "Some- 
 times I was admitted to the platform, and sometimes I was not." As to the 
 cause of the "sore feeling" between the Irish peasants and the police, Mr. 
 Irwin believed that the employment of the police at evictions was "certainly" 
 one of the causes of it. " General discontent," said ISIr. Irwin, " increased after 
 1879," and the drift of his answers was that the discontent was caused by evic- 
 tions. The following questions, with their replies, will show what he meant. 
 " Do you know that just as distress deepened, evictions increased ? " " Well, 
 I have no personal knowledge of that." And then he added : " As the people 
 fell into arrears, of course writs were issued, and the consequence would be 
 evictions." "And as these evictions increased, general discontent increased?" 
 "General discontent increased since 1879." "Have outrages, in your judg- 
 ment, increased in proportion to evictions ? " "I have heard people who had 
 been evicted, or who had received notices of eviction, say they did not care 
 what became of them, or what they did." " They fell, in fact, into a state of 
 
Thtirsday] the Parnell Commission, [Nov. i. 13 
 
 desperation?" " Some of them." Mr. Murphy, Q.C., who was examining 
 Mr. Irwin, on behalf of T/ie Tunes, was trying to show that the discontent 
 and outrages which followed the year 1879 were due to the League ("con- 
 spiracy ") founded in September of that year. Sir Charles Russell, on the 
 other hand, traced it to the general distress which, said the witness, existed 
 in the West and South- West of Ireland during the period in question, and which 
 was followed by evictions. It w^as a case of rival interpretations of con- 
 temporary Irish history. "The distress was great," said Constable Irwin, 
 '* among the smaller farmers " — the very class of persons for whom Mr. 
 Parnell interceded from his prison in Kilmainham, and from whom came, as 
 Mr. Parnell said, the perpetrators of the outrages which the Government were 
 trying to suppress by Coercion and Crimes Acts. The distress began even in 
 the year before the foundation of the League, and was especially severe in 
 Galway, where crimes of the worst sort speedily became more numerous than 
 anywhere in Ireland. As the witness admitted, a repetition of the great 
 famine of 1846-48 was expected. 
 
 Having thus got the witness to admit that long before the foundation of the 
 Land League there existed widespread distress, leading to non-payment of 
 rent, leading, in its turn, to evictions, which in turn made the people — or, 
 as the witness said, "some" — "desperate," Sir Charles Russell questioned 
 him about the kind of language used by the League speakers during that 
 period of distress and discontent. It will be remembered that, in his opening 
 speech, the Attorney-General accused League speakers of saying nothing to 
 dissuade the people from violence. What light could Constable Irwin throw 
 upon that question ? Constable Irwin now said, in answer to Sir Charles 
 Russell, that among the speeches which he heard, " there were very many " in 
 which the people were enjoined to be patient. " And did not si:>eakers ask 
 the people to rely upon the efforts of their leaders to secure their rights from 
 Parliament?" "Yes ; that was the general tone of many of the speeches," 
 was the reply. Still, there were very few meetings, added the witness, at 
 which " harum-scarum " speeches — as Sir Charles Russell called them — were 
 not made. 
 
 As for "Scrab" Nally, whom the Attorney-General had so conspicuously 
 honoured by quotations from his speeches, ]\Ir. Irwin had never met him ; but, 
 said Mr. Irwin, " I know he is looked upon as a man who would say anything." 
 He was next asked what he knew of the attitude of the League towards secret 
 societies. " I have, certainly," said he, "heard of attempts by secret society 
 men to break up the Land League meetings." And he knew that the counties 
 in which disturbance was most rife in the years 1880-83, were also the counties 
 in which secret societies had the strongest hold. Speaking of the Castleisland 
 district of Kerry, he attributed some, at least, of the crimes perpetrated in it 
 to young loafers and idlers who spent most of their time in watching the police. 
 
 Mr. Healy now cross-examined, and succeeded in eliciting some striking 
 arithmetical facts. " How many speeches of ?;n'7ie have you reported ?" asked 
 Mr. Healy. "About a hundred," of which number only six were put in depo- 
 sition. " How many meetings should you say were held from start to finish of 
 the agitation?" " Perhaps tens of thousands," Mr. Irwin answered. And these 
 meetings were open to everybody who chose to attend them. INIr. Irwin next 
 gave a brief but suggestive account of the Irish Grand Juries, saying that they 
 were elected by the landlords, and that it was the landlord jurors who had 
 the powder of levying rates in compensation for outrages. Mr. Irwin also 
 declared that he had heard of such things as bogus outrages, planned for the 
 purpose of getting " compensation " from the Grand Jurors. 
 
 Mr. Davitt then made his dS^if as a cross-examiner in an English court of 
 justice. A strong, clear, resonant, manly voice was Mr. Davitt's. " Not the 
 slightest discourtesy " had Mr. Irwin met with at meetings at which he had 
 
14 Thursday] Diary of [Nov. i. 
 
 taken notes of Mr. Davitt's speeches. "What did you hear me say?" In 
 Castleisland (Kerry) *' I heard you warn the people against the commission of 
 crime." "You recollect me denouncing moonlighting very vigorously?" 
 "Yes, I do." A brief re-examination by Mr. Murphy, Q.C, followed the 
 cross-examination by Mr. Davitt. In this re-examination Mr. Murphy got 
 INIr. Irwin to reassert that Kerry was "quiet" in the period immediately 
 preceding the foundation of the Land League. The purpose of the re-exami- 
 nation was to saddle the League with the responsibility for the outrages which 
 happened subsequently to its foundation. The purpose of the cross-exami- 
 nation by Sir Charles Russell was to show that these outrages were the fruit 
 — sure to appear in due time — of the distress, and consequent arrears and 
 evictions, under which the people were growing "desperate " before the Land 
 League came into existence. As already said, the counsel for the accusers 
 and the counsel for the accused were interpreting Irish history differently. 
 
 Mr. Bernard O'Malley's evidence coincided pretty generally with that of 
 Mr. Irwin. O'^NIalley was cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, ^Nlr. Reid, 
 C^.C, and Mr. Healy. In answer to ]\Ir. Reid, he corroborated ]Mr. Irwin's 
 evidence, that the speakers at League meetings generally warned the people 
 not to commit crime — for commission of crime " would injure their cause," 
 said the witness, quoting League speakers. " How is it," asked Sir Charles, 
 "that you have not transcribed a speech of Father Eglinton's, delivered at a 
 meeting some other speeches of which are put in evidence ? " "I was not 
 asked to," Mr. O'Malley answered. It turned out that Father Eglinton 
 denounced the murder of Lord Mountmorres — " I have a distinct recollection 
 of it," said the witness. Sir Charles Russell, in the course of his cross-exami- 
 nation, drew attention to another example of incomplete quotation. The 
 example was from a speech of Mr. Brennan's. 
 
 The extract given in court was as follows : "The highest form of govern- 
 ment is a Republic. You may establish a Republic on Irish soil." But Sir 
 Charles Russell read out the context thus : — 
 
 If we had a Gov'ernment in Ireland to-morrow which would protect the idler against the 
 worker, I would be against them. All I see here, I think, will agree with me that the highest 
 form of government is a Republic. Well, you may establish a Republic on Irish soil, but as 
 long as the tillers of the soil are forced to support an idle class, a Republic would be a 
 mockery. 
 
 Mr. O'Malley, like his fellow-witness, was asked for his opinion of " Scrab." 
 Mr. O'^Ialley had a poor opinion of "Scrab." On one occasion he saw 
 " Scrab" prevented from putting a resolution at a public meeting. " I never 
 heard," said Mr. O'Malley, " that ' Scrab ' was regarded as a sort of a lunatic ; 
 but he was looked upon as a sort of a drunkard. He was what I should call 
 a free lance." Then Mr. O'Malley amused his audience by confessing that, 
 on two or three occasions, he had " drinks " with this wonderful " Scrab." 
 " It might have been at nine or ten o'clock" [at night presumably], "or it 
 might have been any time at all " — at which Irish answers the people in court 
 laughed. But before this part of the story was finished, Mr. O'Malley ex- 
 plained that he himself, as a teetotaler, drank water, though the renowned 
 " Scrab " took something stronger. 
 
 Lastly, Mr. O'Malley gave some evidence of landlord indifference to peasant 
 distress. ^Vhen the distress of nine or ten years ago was at its height, 
 "most of the farmers" on the Berridge property (which extends forty or fifty 
 miles through Connemara) were, said Mr. O'^NIalley, kept alive by public 
 subscription ; but he never heard that the landlord had shown the smallest 
 interest in the people's welfare, or expended a shilling for their relief. 
 
 In the earlier part of his cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell, Constable 
 Irwin made some interesting statements about the preparation of The Times 
 evidence in the first case, the case of O'Donnell v. Walter. Mr. Irwin had 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 6. 15 
 
 himself taken clown the evidence of witnesses for T/ie Times, but not, as he 
 said, "on instructions." In "some cases, "said INIr. Irwin, I gave the evidence 
 to Mr. Home, a Resident Magistrate for Clare and Kerry. This was done at 
 the Inns of Court Hotel, where Captain Slack, Mr. Holden, and other 
 Irish magistrates and police officers were living. Mr. Home, he also said, 
 took statements from witnesses. But he declined to say, positively, whether 
 or not the other Irish magistrates followed Mr. Home's example ; whether 
 they were or were not engaged in getting up evidence for 7V/e Times. They 
 were writing, certainly, and witnesses were going in and out. But Mr. Irwin 
 thought the magistrates might have been writing " their private letters." 
 "The same kind of thing went on — on and off — perhaps for a week. " " What ! 
 still at their private letters ! " exclaimed Sir Charles, with a look of surprise. 
 
 NINTH DAY. 
 
 November 6. 
 
 To visitors in search not of a "sensation," but of insight into contemporary 
 Ireland, to-day's proceedings must have been the most interesting of the 
 series. Yet the morning sitting was but thinly attended. In the afternoon 
 the court was crowded. Captain Plunkett, known in Ireland as " Plunkett 
 Pacha," appearing among the onlookers, attracted some attention. So did 
 Mr. Matt. Harris, M.P., who, if some of the Attorney-General's "particulars" 
 are worthy of trust, would have liked many things worse than a day's shooting 
 among landlords. Dr. Tanner also was among the new arrivals, squeezing 
 himself into a corner on the solicitor's bench. Mr. Parnell, Mr. Michael 
 Davitt, INIr. Biggar were there as usual. The day's proceedings began with a 
 mild protest by the Attorney-General against an evening paper, which, as he 
 said, had published statements amounting to intimidation of witnesses. He 
 did not wish to take any definite proceedings against the paper in question, in 
 the present stage at least ; but only to procure an expression of opinion from 
 the bench. Sir Charles Russell then rose with a tu qztoqzie sort of argument, 
 pointing out that The Times was every day publishing an advertisement in 
 which one of the letters (the genuineness of which was one of the most 
 important questions before the Court) was described as "Mr. Parnell's facsimile 
 letter." Sir James Hannen suggested that in future The Times might qualify 
 its description of the letter with some such word as " alleged " ; and he ex- 
 pressed the hope that newspapers would henceforth "abstain from comments 
 on the case at all, and leave us undisturbed in the performance of the painful 
 duty we have undertaken." 
 
 Ten witnesses were examined during the day. The first of the ten was Mr. 
 Ives, special correspondent of The Nezu York Herald, who accompanied Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Dillon to America at the end of 1879. He described how he 
 interviewed Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon on board ship, and how before the 
 results were published to all the world, both these gentlemen looked over his 
 MS., Mr. Parnell himself making occasional corrections. Mr. Ives remembered 
 how Mr. Parnell had spoken of the newly-founded League as a political school 
 for the Irish people. Though at that time, said Mr. Ives, The New York 
 Heraldviz.s rather more hostile than friendly to the Parnellite movement, yet that 
 journal created an Irish relief fund, which ultimately amounted to ^69,000, of 
 which Mr. Gordon Bennett contributed ;!^20,ooo. Mr. Ives also stated that 
 in the course of his conversations with the Irish leader on board ship, 
 Mr. Parnell declared he would have nothing to do with any illegal and 
 
1 6 Tuesday] Diary of [Nov. 6. 
 
 unconstitutional association, such as Fenianism was. Mr. Ives also said he 
 had travelled over Ireland in the years 1879-S2, that he found acute distress, 
 especially along the western coast^where also, he added, discontent was 
 most acute. This was said in answer to Sir Charles Russell, who, however, 
 postponed his full cross-examination of the witness until the following day. 
 
 Then John Rafferty, of county Galway, the first Irish peasant who has ap- 
 peared at this trial, stepped into the witness-box, and from that moment until 
 the adjournment at four o'clock, Probate Court No. I became a sort of Ireland 
 in the Strand. Farmer John Rafferty, and the eight witnesses who followed 
 him, succeeded between them in giving a vivid picture of the Ireland of the 
 hour, and a sombre, tragic picture it was. John Rafferty, in his rough frieze 
 coat, and with his sharp, thin, grey face, was a fair type of the Galway 
 peasant. He was Irish in his good-humour and in his very unconventional 
 way of expressing himself. " Bedad," said he, turning to the bench, "I never 
 attended a meeting of the Land Laygue (League) in my life." He told how, 
 because he occupied land from which another tenant had been evicted, he was 
 one ni"-ht — in May, 18S0 — assailed by fifteen men, five of whom had their faces 
 blackened. But at this point Sir Charles Russell interposed wuth a question : 
 What had all this to do with the case ? Did the Attorney-General mean to 
 bring home such offences to any of the individual M.P.'s and others charged 
 by T/ie Times ; or to the Land League organization ? What was the use of 
 proving an outrage, unless it could be shown that the outrage was traceable to 
 the leaguers ? Mere proof of outrage would only prejudice the pubhc mind. 
 Sir James Hannen settled the dispute by suggesting, as he had done more than 
 once before, that the Attorney-General should conduct his case in his own way, 
 leaving it to Sir Charles Russell to disprove, by cross-examination, the con- 
 nection between the Land League and the outrages. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, John Rafferty admitted he did not 
 think the Land League had had anything to do with his maltreatment. " I 
 don't believe," he said, " there was any League branch within a mile of the 
 place." His face wrinkling into a broad grin, Rafferty described how the men 
 with the blackened faces " carded " him when they pulled him out of bed. 
 The " card," he explained, is a " wooden piece of board with a nail or two 
 stuck in it," and the moonlighters scraped the " card" along his back. "They 
 did not injure my wife," he added ; they " only cast her about." 
 
 Rafferty was followed by Dominic Barry, a police sub-inspector of 
 Loughrea district. Examined by ]\Ir. Atkinson in reference to the Murty Hynes'' 
 case, he described how in 1880 Hynes took a farm from w^hich a tenant 
 named Bermingham had been evicted ; how a monster meeting — of the Land 
 League, as he emphatically averred — was held near Hynes's farm ; how at last 
 Hynes came on to the platform to intimate his willingness to surrender the 
 farm ; how three or four months after that a man named Dempsey took the 
 farm ; and how a short time subsequently Dempsey was shot on his way to 
 church. The particular point upon which The Times counsel questioned this 
 witness of theirs was his knowledge of dates. He declared stoutly that he had 
 never heard any public denunciations of land-grabbing before the year 1879, 
 though, as he said, some people privately condemned it. He declared that he 
 had never even heard of the word " land-grabbing " before 1879. Up to 1879 
 the district had been peaceful. 
 
 The next witness was Mrs. Dempsey, the widow of the murdered man — a 
 slight, fair-haired w^oman she was, who gave her evidence in a self-possessed 
 manner, but almost inaudibly. Patrick Hughes, the next witness, stated that 
 " torches " were lighted on the hill-tops on the night of Dempsey's funeral. 
 He meant, perhaps, bonfires. The next witness, Mrs. Conners, was, like Mrs. 
 
 ^ Murty Hynes's surrender is the subject of a ballad by Mr. T. D. Sullivan, J*I.P., 
 ex- Lord Mayor of Dublin, and proprietor and editor of The Nation newspaper. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [Nov. 6. 17 
 
 Dempsey, the widow of a murdered tenant who had taken an "evicted" farm. 
 She maintained somewhat vaguely, but stubbornly, that all the meetings held 
 in the district at that period, 1880, were "Land League meetings." The 
 neighbours, she said, would not attend her husband's funeral, and "because 
 of the boycotting we had difhculty in procuring food." 
 
 After the peasant witnesses came the first landlord witness, Mr. Lewis, who 
 lives within four miles of Woodford, in county Galway. Like the police sub- 
 inspector already named, Mr. Lewis held that the district was quiet until the 
 time of the foundation of the Land League in 1879. After that, according to 
 his account, the people boycotted him ; his mowing-machine was broken by 
 some persons unknown, and even a Catholic priest and leaguer — Father Fahy 
 — threatened that if he did not give his tenants the reductions they demanded 
 his house would be blown up, and he himself killed. Mr. Lewis gave his 
 evidence in a jerky, excitable manner. WHien cross-examined by Mr. Har- 
 rington he admitted that though he claimed ;^200 compensation for damages 
 inflicted upon his house property and lands, he received only £^0. Another 
 Galway landlord, Mr. Lambert, examined by Mr. Atkinson, stated that until 
 1879 he had never known of a tenant being persecuted for taking an evicted farm. 
 So far all was plain sailing. But now there appeared a witness who sorely 
 taxed the patience both of bench and counsel, though he greatly amused the 
 audience. This was a young man named Thomas White, also of county 
 Galway. His words ran into one another. He spoke rapidly and in a low voice, 
 and his brogue was of the broadest. Counsel were in despair. Sharp-eyed 
 Mr. Lockwood detected a piece of paper in Mr. White's hand. Perhaps his 
 paper is clearer than his speech, suggested Mr. Lockwood. " Yes, it is," 
 remarked the President, who was examining the document. However, they 
 tried Thomas White once more. Again a total failure ; examining counsel 
 dropping his arms, and glancing round in comic despair. " Do we want an 
 interpreter?" exclaimed Sir James Hannen, with a look of amusement and 
 boredom. Thomas White tried it again. This time he became communi- 
 cative. He rambled off into a rapid, good-natured, confidential story about his 
 father keeping a public-house. Then Sir James Hannen appealed to the 
 official shorthand writer, who was sitting close to Thomas White, but the 
 stenographer's very meagre notes showed only too clearly that he also was no 
 match for Mr. ^Vhite. Then Mr. Wliite, turning to Mr. Atkinson, began to 
 mumble something about the (laygue) League. " Perhaps Mr. Atkinson can 
 tell us what the witness says," insinuated Sir James Hannen, with an engaging 
 smile. " I can't " — was the meaning of Mr. Atkinson's responsive gesture — a 
 shrug of the shoulders. It was diverting to watch Sir James Hannen and Mr. 
 Atkinson as, with hands to their ears, they strained after Mr. White's appal- 
 lingly swift Galway brogue. At least one intelligible sentence was got out 
 of him — that his father was boycotted for not joining the League, and that he 
 himself was boycotted because he was the son of his father. 
 
 But he contrived to upset this intelligible declaration by another equally 
 intelligi')le, that he never had been boycotted ! Then Mr. Lockwood tried 
 the written document. " Mr. Lewis," said the witness, " wrote it for me. I 
 did not ask him to write it. He sent it to me, and told me it was my evidence." 
 At this declaration all present naturally pricked up their ears. And there was 
 a burst of laughter as T/ie Times witness described how his evidence had been 
 got up for him. Evidently Mr. White's listeners had come to the conclusion 
 that the obliging Mr. Lewis was the Woodford landlord who had been 
 examined a little while before. But Mr. Murphy, Q.C., suddenly gave the 
 incident a fresh turn, for, after another spell of struggling with Mr. White's 
 brogue, he elicited these two statements — that Mr. White in the first place 
 gave Mr. Lewis the evidence which Mr. Lewis put into shape for him, and 
 next, that the Mr. Lewis was not the Woodford landlord of the name. 
 
1 8 Wednesday] Diary of [Nov. 7. 
 
 The last witness produced by the Attorney-General was a Mr. Courcey, who 
 had been in Loughrea in 1S84-5-6, and who had known the process-server, 
 Finlay, who was murdered in March of the last-named year. He described 
 how the Woodford people to whom he applied — the clergy included — refused, 
 on one pretence or another, to supply a coffin for Finlay's funeral ; how the 
 Woodford people refused, on the night of the murder, to give the widow fire, 
 food, or light ; and how on the following night he himself succeeded in pro- 
 curing food for her. Even Finlay's own brother, the witness declared, did 
 not accompany the body, on the day of the funeral, outside the limits of the 
 town (Woodford). In the early part of his evidence Mr. Courcey stated that 
 at a meeting of Leaguers held in Woodford, one of the leaders remarked that 
 the police protectors of process-servers would soon be done away with. But 
 now he was asked by Mr. Reid, Q.C., to explain what that meant. Mr. 
 Courcey explained that he did not mean that the speaker threatened murder, 
 but only that, as Home Rule was approaching, the police would be under the 
 people's control. 
 
 TENTH DAY. 
 
 November 7.^ 
 
 The court resumed work punctually at half-past ten, and in less than twelve 
 minutes three important witnesses were disposed of. These were Constables 
 Br^tty, Nally, and Gibbon. They were examined in a swift, rattling fashion 
 by one of the Irish barristers for T/ie Tzmes, Ivlr. Ronan ; and they gave their 
 evidence with corresponding promptitude and brusqueness. It was a short 
 story, but what a picture of discontented Ireland ! The examination of all three 
 turned on the assassination of the process-server, Finlay, who, as described 
 yesterday, was murdered at Woodford in March, 1886. In a matter-of-fact, 
 ready way Constable Beatty told how he saw Mrs. Finlay " wringing her 
 hands " while she stood in her doorway, gazing in the direction from which 
 some people were conveying her husband's dead body. She went to the 
 priest's house (Father Egan's), which, we may explain, stands half way up the 
 steep main street of Woodford. She lay down on the road. A man passing 
 by "tried to kick her," said the constable in his gruff voice. 
 
 The next witness narrated how he escorted the coffin to Woodford all the 
 way from Loughrea, seventeen miles off — the coffin the Woodford traders had 
 refused to supply, even the Woodford priests refusing to interfere. All this was 
 pitiable and tragic enough. But what followed was worse — horrible, inhuman, 
 if the constable told the truth. The third constable, Patrick Gibbon, in a 
 hard, bluff voice, holding himself bolt upright with a soldierly stiffiiess, 
 described the mock funeral — Finlay's — of the 5th of iNIarch, 1SS6, two days 
 after the murder. "A crowd of people," the funeral procession consisted of, 
 carr}-ing spades, headed by a brass band, bearing the coffin aloft *' on pitch- 
 forks " — coffin covered with black crape, and the head of a goat sticking out 
 of it, horns and all. 
 
 The main object of The Times counsel was to prove the connection 
 between these crimes and brutalities and the Land League ; and so the 
 witness, in examination, alleged that in the mock funeral he saw " Dr. 
 Tully," a local leader of the League, and that in a field belonging to Mr. 
 Keary — secretary of the local branch — he saw two hundred of the proces- 
 sionists assembled during the evening of the mock funeral. All these events 
 took place in what is pre-eminently known as the " hot district " of Ireland 
 — a district of which Loughrea, Woodford, and Portumna are the centres. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 7. 19 
 
 Two constabulary witnesses, Welsh and Barry, the first of whom was a 
 retired officer, and the second of whom gave part of his evidence yesterday, 
 were closely examined by TAe Times counsel, with a view to show that in 
 certain parts, at least, of the hot district the relations between landlords and 
 tenants were fairly pleasant until the Land League arose, and that discontent 
 and crime immediately followed its establishment. Constable Welsh, describ- 
 ing the state of Gort, a parish near Gal way town, in 1879-80, declared that 
 until 1879, the date of the foundation of the League in that locality, no dis- 
 turbances had occurred, but that outrages followed after that date. He gave 
 some account of Land League "hunts," as they were called, and which appear 
 to have been assemblages of young men with " dogs and sticks," who amused 
 themselves with chasing and killing hares and other game in the private 
 " domains," or parks, of the local landlords. Welsh, however, could not say 
 that he saw Land League men among these hunting parties, nor could he tell 
 why the hunts were called " Land League hunts." This last admission was 
 in reply to a question by Sir Charles Russell. After a little more fencing and 
 various disclaimers of knowledge on the part of the witness, he further 
 admitted that he did hear it reported in the district that rents were raised and 
 arrears pressed for by a local landlord between the years 1872 and 1880 in 
 revenge for the landlord's defeat at a parliamentary contest. Sir Henry James, 
 next taking the witness in hand, got him to declare that until 1879-80 the 
 tenants had never required police protection ; and that until the same date he 
 had not even heard the name land-grabbing. Precisely the same line of 
 evidence was furnished by the next witness, Barry, to whom, by the way. The 
 Times counsel apparently attach much importance. Barry had been stationed 
 in the hottest part of the hot district — namely, in Loughrea — during part of 
 1880 and for two or three years subsequently. Drawing himself stiffly up, and 
 twirling his moustache, Mr. Barry alleged in his most emphatic manner that 
 Loughrea was quite a peaceful place until the League began its operations 
 there, after which outrages began, five of them being murders, all perpetrated 
 before 1S83. It was after the advent of the Land League, said Barry, that 
 the police force had to be largely increased in Loughrea. All the public 
 meetings held in 1880-81, in Loughrea, said Barry, were Land League meet- 
 ings, and Constable Linton, who was murdered in Church Street, Loughrea, 
 in July, 1 88 1, was well known as a constable whose duty it was to attend 
 League meetings and take notes of their proceedings. Examined by Sir 
 Henry James, Mr. Barry said that some Land Leaguers were among the 
 Loughrea suspects who were imprisoned under the Crimes Act in 1881. One 
 of the liveliest of The Times witnesses to-day was District- Inspector Bell, a 
 smallish, youthful-looking gentleman, unlike the ordinary constabulary type. 
 Not the least remarkable of Mr. Bell's gifts was his marvellous memory. 
 
 For very nearly an hour and a half Mr. Graham plodded his way through a 
 long list of offences — threatening letters, cattle maiming, &c. , &c. — in 1880-1-2, 
 still in Galway. Not a name, nor a locality, nor a date connected with Mr. 
 Graham's tedious and minute narrative but Mr. Bell was ready to identify, and 
 to give further particulars about it. Mr. Bell's testimony was in substance an 
 agrarian history of his own district of Galway during the three years already 
 named — a district, as he said, measuring twenty miles by six. It was a dismal 
 monotone of cruelty and crime. The accusers hold that for these cruelties and 
 crimes the League and its members were responsible. The accused regard 
 these crimes as events over which they had no control, and which would have 
 happened if an organized League had never existed. But, whichever side is 
 right, one thing is clear — that the story of these constitutes a vivid picture of 
 the state of the country. The number of intimidating letters and of boycot- 
 ting notices quoted by Mr. Graham and promptly checked and identified by 
 Mr. Bell was almost legion. A single specimen of a threatening letter will 
 
20 Wednesday] Diary of [Nov. 7. 
 
 sufiice : "My good grabber, give up your land, or if not your death will 
 follow. Yours truly, Rory o' the Hills " — such letters being usually em- 
 bellished with pictures of coffins. Many, however, of the agrarian " crimes" 
 quoted by Mr. Graham were of the most trifling description. Mr. Graham's 
 long lists of agrarian "crimes" were, to tell the truth, becoming tiresome. 
 WTiile Mr. Graham droned and plodded his way perseveringly through 1880 
 and 1 88 1, and 1882, the people in court — Q.C.'s, juniors, and all, gossipped 
 and chatted. Sir Henry James was engaged, smilingly, in conversation 
 with Sir Charles Russell. Mr. Justice Day looked bored. But when Mr. Bell 
 asserted the truth of a story about the cutting off of the tails of twenty horses, all 
 present pricked up their ears. But to everybody's relief it turned out that only 
 the hair had been cut. A shudder passed through the court when Inspector Bell, 
 in his cool, business-like way, described how an unpopular tenant's sheep had 
 had their wool and skin torn off their backs in such a manner that their bodies 
 bled. 
 
 An expression of profound disgust clouded the faces of Mr. Justice 
 Day and Sir J. Hannen — the latter frowning as the former leant over to 
 whisper something to him. Another story about the smashing of a heifer's 
 shoulder — the poor beast had ultimately to be killed — ended Mr. Graham's 
 dreary record of intimidation, for 1 88 1. 
 
 The theory of the prosecution was that these hideous crimes were caused, or 
 encouraged, by leaguers as such. But the Father of the Land League, Mr. 
 Michael Davitt, once declared, in a famous speech, that if his own brother were 
 guilty of such misdeeds he would flog him at the cart's tail. Mr. Graham's 
 list of agrarian crime for 1882 being of the same general description as his lists 
 for the preceding years, no particular notice need be taken of it. Sir Charles 
 Russell now took the smart deputy-inspector in hand. In the course of his 
 story, Mr. Bell said that there were some landlords whom he knew in the 
 county of Galway upon whose estates there were no League branches and no 
 disorder ; but, as he admitted, such landlords — he named ISIr. French in par- 
 ticular — were indulgent landlords who had given reductions to their tenants. 
 Sir Charles Russell's cross-examination of Mr. Bell was, therefore, designed to 
 prove how urgently the Galway tenants at that period — as well as tenants in 
 Mayo and Kerry — needed consideration at their landlords' hands. Crime 
 followed the footsteps of the Land League, says one side. It followed hard- 
 ship, misery, and oppression, the other side contends. All through this trial 
 the official witnesses have generally agreed in denying the existence of excep- 
 tional distress in 1879-81. Mr. Bell airily, almost jauntily, denied that there 
 was exceptional hardship. But when pressed by Sir Charles Russell the witness 
 said he thought it possible there might have been forty-three thousand destitute 
 persons in county Galway at that time ! Then the Attorney-General, appear- 
 ing for the first time in to-day's proceedings, endeavoured to destroy the effect 
 of the last admission by eliciting the following answer in reply to a question. 
 The answer — Mr. Bell's — was that the "coincidence " between the foundation 
 of a League branch in a locality, and the outbreak of crime in that locality, 
 was " clear undoubtedly," and he added that the payment of rent was the 
 immediate cause of the outrages perpetrated upon the payers. 
 
 Mr. Bell left the box. Mr. Ives, special correspondent of T/ie New York 
 Herald in Ireland during the years 1879-83, was recalled. INIr. Ives's 
 account of the state of Ireland during that period differed astonishingly from 
 that of the police witnesses who preceded him. With a file of The New York 
 Herald in front of him. Sir Charles Russell read out long extracts from INIr. 
 Ives's despatches, describing the widespread misery in INIayo, Galway, Kerry, 
 and especially along the Western Coast. " No language can describe the 
 appalling condition of the people," said Mr. Ives, in one passage ; " three 
 hundred thousand people are slowly starving." There were passages also from 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 7. 21 
 
 which it appeared that as a rule the landlords were indifferent to their tenants' 
 sufferings, and that they subscribed little or nothing to the total amount of 
 ;^70o,ooo collected in Irish relief funds all over the world. Let the reader 
 always bear in mind the purpose of this class of testimony — on the one side to 
 prove that wherever the League appeared crime consequently followed ; on the 
 other to prove that crime was simply the last resource of a people driven des- 
 perate — the natural result of hardship and oppression, quite apart from political 
 leagues. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell having got this testimony as to the existence of wide- 
 spread misery in 1879-80, made an onslaught upon " Scrab," with whose pet 
 dog-like name the reader is already familiar. In his two or three days' intro- 
 ductory speech, the Attorney-General quoted largely from, and attributed much 
 importance to, " S crab's " wild speeches in the early days of the League. 
 *' Scrab " spoke wildly, no doubt, as counsel for the Parnellite members them- 
 selves admit, but they say that " Scrab " was a person whom the League 
 leaders snubbed wherever and whenever they could. And now Mr. Ives gave 
 his impressions of " Scrab." "Scrab," said he, was a man of no weight. 
 " Scrab " was a drunkard. " Scrab " was " always full." " Full of whiskey ? " 
 asked Sir Charles, his head on one side. "Yes, full of whiskey," quoth Mr. 
 Ives, with a good-humoured smile. And " Scrab " delivered his speeches — or 
 some of them at any rate — when the meetings were over. So much for 
 " Scrab" — whom T/ie Times has immortalized. 
 
 To Mr. Ives succeeded four witnesses, the first of whom was a police officer 
 named CfesristoH, who, taking up the thread of the dreary story of crime, testi- 
 fied to the murder of Bourke and Constable Wallace at Ardrahan, near Craugh- 
 well, county Galway — still discontented, wretched Galway — in 1882. There 
 was one ugly touch in his description — people treading in the blood of the 
 murdered constable. The next witness, also a constable, agreed with many 
 of the preceding witnesses in alleging that there was no very severe distress in 
 those years. In his district, at all events, people were, he said, generally well 
 off. He was pretty severely handled by Mr. Lockwood, to whom he admitted 
 that in spite of the general comfort there was a large distribution of relief. If 
 they were well off, why did they want relief, Mr. Lockwood wanted to know. 
 
 The amusing witness was Mr. Burke, of Woodford. Mr. Burke was a short, 
 reddish-faced young man, in roughish attire. He might have been taken for 
 an omnibus conductor. Perhaps that was why the audience laughed when Mr. 
 Burke, in answer to Sir James Hannen, and staring Sir James full in the face, 
 announced that he was a " magisthrate." He was a bird of a feather with the 
 distinguished President. Mr. Burke maintained that he was boycotted by the 
 Woodford branch of the National League (in 1887), inasmuch as the threat of 
 boycotting was conveyed to him by a priest, Father Egan, who was a leader 
 of the local branch. They boycotted him, according to his own account, be- 
 cause he refused to go to a Petty Sessions Court for the purpose of deciding in 
 favour of a local leaguer, Mr. John Roche, who was on his trial. "For this 
 reRisal," said Mr. Burke, " I was boycotted ; " and then he described how 
 his servants and workmen left him presumably in obedience to orders from the 
 local leaguers. Taking a long time to think out how many people had really 
 left his regular service, he at last rapped out " three." Then he described how 
 nobody in Woodford would sell him food, and how nobody would shoe his 
 horses for him. "I had my horse shod privately," and then he added, 
 gravely and slowly, " by a blacksmith " — as if he did not wish their Lordships 
 to imagine a tinsmith had tried it. "I was never under police protection 
 myself," he continued, " but my house was." To the amusement of the Court, 
 he tried, unsuccessfully, to give some coherent account of complex but wholly 
 uninteresting family relationships between himself and the two chief persons 
 named in his evidence, the Rev. Father Egan and Mr. John Roche. With 
 
 cJiOk 
 
22 Thursday] Diary of [Nov. 8. 
 
 his left elbow resting on the ledge of the witness-box, and his right hand index- 
 finger raised, he was expatiating on this endless topic when the Court rose. 
 Mr. Burke looked hurriedly about him, as who should say, " Where are you off 
 to ? " Then he followed the dispersing multitude. 
 
 ELEVENTH DAY. 
 
 November 8. 
 
 Twenty witnesses were examined — a good day's work. Their connected 
 evidence was a dismal monotone of sordid, vicious spites, house-breaking, 
 house-burning, shooting, maiming, murder. Hardly had the Court assembled 
 when it plunged, so to speak, into a murder case — one of the ugliest in the 
 record. This was the case of Bailiff Huddy, who was employed on the estate 
 of Lord Ardilaun, in Mayo, in 1880, and who was murdered early in that year, 
 shortly after he left his house, in the company of his nephew. Huddy and his 
 nephew were murdered together. The bailiff's son now appeared in the 
 witness-box. He saw his father and cousin start off on their day's work. 
 " They never returned," he said, with suggestive brevity. 
 
 Then there stepped into the witness-box a man who saw them killed — they 
 were driven against a wall, they were stoned, then shot. It took some time 
 to get at this man's story ; for he spoke in Erse, and the Court had to employ 
 an interpreter. The interpreter, speaking in a hard, rapid, clattering voice, 
 was almost as unintelligible as the Erse-speaking witness. The Bench could 
 not hear him. Counsel could not hear him. To make himself heard the in- 
 terpreter moved off to the extremity of the solicitor's bench. Then it was 
 found that he was too far away from his witness. They craned their necks, 
 each in the other's direction, the interpreter turning his hand into an ear- 
 trumpet, the witness doing likewise, as they bawled in their diverse tongues. 
 Kerrigan was the Erse witness's name ; and Kerrigan almost howled when he 
 told the Court that he had been nine months in jail, on suspicion of having 
 murdered the two Huddys. 
 
 Mrs. Kerrigan then stepped into the box. A short, squab-figured, dumpy little 
 woman she was, with the face oi PtmcK's typical Hibernian. She wore a bright 
 tartan shawl over her head — in the manner of Irish peasant- women. Holding 
 a red handkerchief to her chin, she fixed her elbows on the ledge of the box, 
 as she gave her story in a guttural Erse babble as rapid as her husband's. The 
 Ti77ies counsel attached considerable importance to Mrs. Kerrigan's testimony, 
 for she told the Court how, while her husband was in prison on charge of the 
 murder, she used to receive money from Mrs. Keating of Galway, a leader, or 
 leaderess of the Ladies' Land League. But at this point Sir Charles Russell 
 promptly intervened. "^Ye admit the receipt of the money," said he. "Yes," 
 said Mr. Reid, Q.C., following Sir Charles; and he reminded the Court of 
 what was a perfectly open and above-board series of transactions during the 
 imprisonment of Mr. Forster's thousand suspects, of whom Mr. Kerrigan was 
 only one ; there was a suspects' relief fund for food, <S:c., and when poor 
 prisoners refused to avail themselves of it, the money value was handed over 
 to their families as a grant in aid during the incarceration of the breadwinners. 
 With this counler-hit by Mr. Reid, the Huddy case ended. Kerrigan was 
 liberated when he divulged the names of the three murderers ; he saw them do 
 it, and he saw them hanged. 
 
 Then followed a story about a series of boycottings and incendiary outrages, 
 all arising from rent disputes on certain estates of which INIr. Ross Mahon was 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission, [Nov. 8. 23 
 
 in part owner, in part agent. In these cases, also, the prosecuting counsel 
 sought to connect the boycotters and house-burners with the League. Cruce, 
 an evicted tenant, who tried to boycott Mr. Mahon, was a leaguer, and some 
 months after his eviction the house of the landlord and agent, Mr. Mahon, 
 was blown up. A witness against the parties charged with the blowing-up, 
 had his own house blown up by a Land League member, John Rafferty. At 
 all events, Rafferty was convicted of the offence. But before counsel had done 
 with this particular series of offences, another witness, Constable Hugh Kelly, 
 declared that he could not tell whether Rafferty was a Land Leaguer or not. 
 In this series of cases of outrage Constable Patrick Bolger was the chief wit- 
 ness. He was pretty closely examined on points which are constantly recurring 
 in this historic trial ; namely, the condition of the country, and the relations 
 between landlords and tenants before the foundation of the Land League at the 
 end of 1879. As we have pointed out in these articles, the constabulary witnesses 
 have almost unanimously described these relations as peaceful. Constable 
 Bolger was no exception to this rule. But when Sir Charles Russell pressed 
 him, he admitted that he knew of one or two instances in which landlords 
 had been shot at in Western Ireland even before the League was founded. 
 
 But the most interesting evidence on the above point was that of the next 
 witness, a Galway landlord, Mr. Botterill. Like the landlord-witnesses who 
 preceded him, Mr. Botterill dated the beginning of Ireland's woes from 1879 — • 
 the year of the League. Before the League appeared there was the " best 
 possible understanding between my tenants and myself ; shortly after it ap- 
 peared I and my daughter were shot at from behind a bush." " Post hoc ergo 
 propter hoc," was the landlord's logic " Post hoc," doubtless ; but we deny 
 the necessity of the inference, said, in effect, Sir Charles Russell. Sir Charles 
 subjected this landlord to a long and merciless cross-examination. How 
 jauntily the landlord declared that the tales of distress in those times were 
 greatly exaggerated ! It was quite true that the potato-crop, upon which the 
 tenants lived, was bad ; but the corn crop, with which they paid their rents, was 
 good ! Sir Charles took a pinch of snuff, and then gazed with a kindly smile at 
 Botterill, when Mr. Botterill made that naive declaration. And then Sir 
 Charles pressed the landlord with a series of questions, the answers to which 
 showed that though Mr. Botterill's tenants were so comfortably off, they were 
 in receipt of doles from the distress funds of the period ; that when they 
 entered the Land Court they got large reductions ; that Mr. Botterill himself 
 got 20 per cent, reduction from landlords whose farms he occupied as a tenant. 
 "Did you ever expend one farthing in assisting your tenants?" asked Sir 
 Charles. " No," replied Mr. Botterill, with a smile ; neither did Mrs. Botterill, 
 who had lands of her own. 
 
 As regards the character and action of the National League (which succeeded 
 the Land League), the testimony of the next witness was more direct than that 
 of Mr. Botterill. This witness, a peasant named Heagney, was denounced last 
 year (1887) at Portumna as a " landgrabber." But he now said that the leaders 
 of the local branch had pronounced in his favour ; that " everybody " in that 
 quarter was a member of the National League ; that " respectable " people, 
 and not *' riff-raff," were members of it ; and that, to his knowledge, people 
 joined the League of their own accord — no pressure being brought to bear upon 
 them. 
 
 Now began the day's amusement. Mike Leonard, a steward, who, it seems, 
 was suspected of coveting an evicted farm, and who was terribly scared in con- 
 sequence, stepped into the box. He gesticulated vigorously. He turned from 
 right to left, as if he wished everybody to hear him. He wrinkled his forehead ; 
 and his round eyes had an alarmed look, just as if he expected a repetition of 
 his visitation of long ago. " Five hundred " men came to his place at night — • 
 •' not a ha'pworth " of black or disguise of any sort on their faces ; they were 
 
24 Friday] Diary of [Nov. 9. 
 
 "clean, good-looking men, and they had arrums"(arms) — to wit, carbines — "as 
 good as any in the Queen's possession." And they had a cafifin (coffin). Here 
 his eyes grew very round. " A big caffin," he shouted. " And they put me 
 in it, and made me pray for my own sowl." Here Mike looked as if his hair 
 was about to stand on end — and Mike stared hard while his audience, learned 
 counsel and laity, broke into a fit of laughter. 
 
 After Mike prayed for his distracted "sowl," the "clean, good-looking 
 men " left him. They only wanted to give him a hint — a pretty broad one — 
 and they appeared to be satisfied with Mike's assurance that he did not want 
 to grab any man's farm. Mike seemed to feel as much relief in hurrying out of 
 the witness-box as (doubtless) he must have felt when he emerged from his 
 coffin. He vanished in a trice. 
 
 To Mike succeeded Tom Connair. Tom was dressed in a long, baggy, 
 swallow-tail coat of grey frieze, with brass buttons before and behind— the old- 
 fashioned style of Irish coat, still common in Western Ireland. Into the wit- 
 ness-box he carried his cudgel, and his black bell-top hat, which he clapped 
 on the ledge in front of him. In a couple of minutes Tom threw the Court into 
 hopeless confusion. The Times counsel had called him to prove that he had 
 made a deposition to the effect that the reason why his house had been burnt 
 was that he had paid his rent against the wishes of the Land League. But 
 now, to the astonishment of The Ti???es counsel, he denied it all. " I can't 
 answer you both at once," said Tom to the President and Mr. Murphy, Q.C., 
 staring at them, one after the other. Nobody could find out from him what he 
 had said, or what he had done. He could not tell whether he had joined the 
 Land League — after the burning business. A ticket of some sort zcas given to 
 him on o?ie occasion ; but, said Tom, with a delightful frankness which com- 
 pletely upset the gravity of the Court, " Sure I was too intoxicated at the time 
 to know what the ticket mint (meant)." He then let it out that it would not 
 have been of much use even had he been sober — for he knew not how to read. 
 In spite of protests from the bench and from counsel, Tom ivould tell his long 
 domestic tales, and fight shy of a straight answer. Mr. Murphy gave him up 
 in despair. So did Sir James Hannen. Nobody could make anything of him. 
 At last Sir Charles Russell tried him, and — will it be believed ? — succeeded ! 
 Sir Charles drew the admission from him, " I niver, niver said my house was 
 burnt because I paid my rint ; niver," he shouted out, clapping his fist on the 
 bench, "as far as I can understand." When Tom had made this emphatic 
 declaration, one of The 7z>;z^j- solicitors stepped into the witness-box and stated 
 on oath that Tom's first deposition w^as in direct contradiction to that which he 
 had now delivered. Comedy and tragedy intermingle in this strange trial. Tom 
 Connair laughs. Mrs. Lyden weeps — as she describes how her husband 
 was dragged out of bed, "through the kitchen," out into the road, and 
 murdered before her eyes ; how her boy screamed as he was dragged out to 
 where his father lay dead, and how he was wounded unto death. 
 
 TWELFTH DAY. 
 
 November 9, 
 
 INI IKE Joyce, a tall Irish peasant, in a long loose ulster of dark-grey frieze, 
 was the first witness. Mike told the old stor}-— of cattle (his own cattle) muti- 
 lated, and sheep killed, as a punishment for his having taken a farm which 
 another had " surrendered " to his landlord. In answer to Mr. Lockwcod, 
 who came in just in time to cross-examine, Joyce was unable to connect the 
 
Friday'] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. g. 25 
 
 crime with a leaguer or with anybody in particular ; and he further admitted 
 that 1879 — the year preceding that in which his cattle were mutilated — was a 
 year of bad crops. Mike Joyce's evidence merely touched upon a subject 
 Which was discussed at great length in the examination of the next witness — 
 Mrs. Blake, of Connemara, in county Galway. 
 
 Everybody who was in court will long remember Mrs. Blake. She is a brave, 
 clever lady, as clever as any Q.C. in the place ; she has confounded Mr. 
 J. G. Biggar, M.P., and brought Sir James Hannen and Sir Charles Russell 
 into sharp collision — that for an anxious moment or two looked as if it would 
 end in a " scene." But we are anticipating. 
 
 Mrs. Blake's estate in Connemara contained four to five thousand acres. Up 
 to the time when the Land League agitation began, Mrs. Blake and her 
 tenants were, so she said, on the best of terms. They went in and out of her 
 house like friends, she knew their circumstances, she helped them when they 
 required help. Then "the agitation came," and tenants began to withhold rent 
 payment, not because they had no money, but because they dared not pay. 
 With very few interruptions from Mr. Murphy, Q.C, who was examining, Mrs. 
 Blake gave her story in a clear, connected manner, with perfect self-possession, 
 and with a tone and gesture indicating resolution and strength of character. 
 There were vivid touches in her story, as when she described how one tenant 
 came secretly to pay his rent, the rent being concealed in his son's sleeve. The 
 receipt was " sewn up the boy's sleeve," in order to prevent discovery outside. 
 Another rent-bearing tenant had to be dragged in through the window, so that 
 he might not be seen by Mrs. Blake's own servants. She told in great detail 
 how some of her tenants, known to have paid her, were punished by the maim- 
 ing of their cattle and the destruction of their property. As she described the 
 condition in which she found a poor bullock, she set her lips firmly together 
 and brought her closed right hand with a sharp pat down upon the desk. 
 
 It was in one of these emphatic moments that Mrs. Blake contrived to bring 
 about the collision above named. She was about to describe an outrage, on 
 second or third hand authority — that of her herd — when Sir Charles Russell, 
 impatiently starting to his feet, protested that "evidence" of that description 
 was inadmissible. 
 
 But the President observed that it was the herd's duty to report the outrage 
 to his employer, and such report was certainly admissible ; besides, its value 
 could be tested in cross-examination. But Sir Charles was implacable. He 
 held that if such evidence was allowed to be put in, this could not be called 
 a "judicial investigation." Sir James frowned. "That's not the proper obser- 
 vation to make," he said. After a pause the dispute was renewed, Sir James 
 Hannen at last declaring, with an emphatic calmness, that " You (Sir Charles 
 Russell) have expressed yourself in a most disrespectful manner." A minute 
 later, and he remarked, in the same tone of quiet severity — " Somebody must 
 have the last word, and I think it is L" 
 
 Trying to find out whether it was political "agitation," or misery, that 
 caused these outrages on Mrs. Blake's estate, Mr. Lockwood questioned her 
 closely as to the condition of her tenantry. There was no exceptional distress, 
 according to Mrs. Blake's testimony. " Why," said she, with one of her 
 resolute looks, "a cry of distress will produce distress." Mr. Lockwood, 
 upset for a moment by the enunciation of such a doctrine, brought out his 
 political economy. If, as you say, potatoes fetched high prices, was not that 
 because they were scarce ? But Mrs. Blake gave the testimony of her own 
 eyes, to the effect that potatoes were not scarce. And she subsequently ex- 
 plained her doctrine of the distress cry in this wise — that if you can manage 
 to get up the cry, the tradespeople will stop credit, thereby compelling the 
 poorest to sell out their necessaries of existence. " Clever woman," the 
 whisper went round. She was. 
 
26 Friday] Diary of [Nov. g. 
 
 Then Mr. Biggar jumped up to see what /le could do. If he could show 
 that the Land Court reduced her rent-income a long way below the old figure, 
 he would, he thought, prove grievous distress on her estate — in spite of her 
 theory of distress cries. He took his plunge like a man, and the next moment 
 looked as if he wished himself a hundred miles away. For Mrs. Blake at 
 once entered upon a long and most interesting story — rendered somewhat fas- 
 cinating by the narrator's manner — of how she anticipated the action of the 
 Land League, and by a method so satisfactory to the tenants, that only twenty 
 or so of the two or three hundred entered the Commissioners' Court. But 
 while she described her method — devised by herself and conducted by herself 
 throughout — Mr. Biggar had to stand stockstill. Instead of putting knowing 
 questions, there he was listening to a long discourse. He was done for. 
 "What's your income now?" he struck in at last, in sheer desperation. 
 " Don't know." " Do you swear you don't know ? " and he wagged his fore- 
 finger. The more Mr. Biggar wagged his finger and the more he challenged 
 her to swear, the more Mrs. Blake laughed. She was mightily amused. This 
 sort of thing w^ent on for a minute or two. Then Mr. Biggar paused. He 
 appeared to be tapping with his finger on Mr. Edward Harrington's cranium, 
 as if in search of a new idea there, having exhausted his own stock. The 
 idea came, and he rattled it forth in his rapid manner, " If you don't know 
 whether it is above or below a thousand, can't you tell us what you think?" 
 *' I assure you I do not know," and on the battle went, Mrs. Blake laughing, 
 Mr. Biggar white and excited, and wagging his forefinger, and challenging her 
 to " swear." 
 
 Mrs. Blake was followed into the witness-box by her son, by one of her 
 tenants, and by one of her herds — a stolid, healthy, garrulous, and incoherent 
 Connemara " l3oy," who said he was seventy, though he would pass any day 
 for forty. The herd warmed up to his countryman, Mr. T. Harrington, who 
 questioned him about the condition of the district in 1 879, the year of the 
 Land League. His account of it was much less favourable than that given by 
 his mistress ; for he declared that 1878-9 was the worst year since the famine 
 of 1847-8 I He also denied that he had ever heard any of his mistress's 
 tenants confess they could pay if they liked. On the Land League his mind 
 was a blank. 
 
 Tke Times counsel next made a jump of six years — from the Land League 
 of 1880 to the National League of 1886. At first sight it did seem as if they 
 had unearthed a startling case of direct, immediate intimidation by the League. 
 The charge was that the president of the National League branch near Gort, 
 in county Galway, had accepted ;i^i5 from a tradesman who had been boy- 
 cotted for hiring out his cars to the police at an eviction, and that, as a con- 
 sequence, the boycott ceased. The president was the local Catholic clergyman, 
 and the money the tradesman paid over constituted his net profit from letting 
 his cars. But the witness's own account threw a less unfavourable light on the 
 transaction. He was boycotted. But, said the witness, " the Catholic clergy- 
 man wholly sympathized with me. The Leaguers themselves were sorry for 
 me," said Mr. Hughes. " I was friends with them, and particularly with 
 Father Considine, who did not ask me for a shilling, and to whom I gave the 
 ;^I5 of my own accord — for the relief of the poor, or any other charitable 
 purpose he pleased." Father Considine, he said, had not blamed him for 
 letting his cars to the police, but had only remarked that as he (Mr. Hughes) 
 was so well off, he might have declined to make money by giving his cars to 
 constables who were going to turn people out of their homes. 
 
 Two or three other cases of the same general character as Mr. Hughes's 
 came on ; but they are scarcely worth notice. 
 
 The principal event of the day's proceedings was the examination of another 
 Mrs. Blake, the wddow of Mr. J. H. Blake, the ill-fated agent of Lord Clan- 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 13. 27 
 
 ricarde — a landlord of whom it is possible that the public may hear more 
 before the work of the Commission is ended. 
 
 Of all the stories that have been told since the trial began, this by Mrs. J. 
 H. Blake was perhaps the most mournful. It was impossible to listen to it 
 without feelings of profoundest pity. Her husband was in reality sacrificed 
 to Lord Clanricarde — in other words, Mr. Blake had warned Lord Clanricarde 
 of the distress on his estates, and earnestly advised him to grant reductions. 
 The landlord refused, and his agent — who was manfully doing his duty — lost 
 his life. Such was the widow's narrative. The judges bent attentively forward 
 — Sir James Hannen holding his hand over his eyes. The sound of a pin-fall 
 might have been heard in the court, as Mrs. Blake, with an expression of sub- 
 dued grief on her refined features (which once or twice trembled), told her 
 story in a low, distinct voice, and in the choice English of a cultivated lady. 
 It was a picture in words — and such a picture ! " The jaunting car," starting 
 for Loughrea, with wife, husband, and driver, passing the holiday crowds on 
 the road ; the wife, somehow, attracted by the suspicious demeanour and con- 
 duct of a boy on the highway ; the shots immediately after ; in two or three 
 minutes more the husband falling dead out of the car ; then 'the driver sinking 
 backwards, supported by his mistress, his wounds streaming with blood ; the 
 horse still running with the fallen reins about its legs, leaving the murdered 
 husband farther and farther behind ; not a man, woman, or child among all 
 those people on the highway answering her appeal for help in the name of God, 
 — was it from stolid indifference, or because landlords and their agents were 
 regarded as enemies of their kind, or was it because a great fear fell upon 
 them also ? \\Tiatever it wa'S, there was something appalling in that dumb 
 avoidance of the beseeching woman in her dire need. Ireland is in the 
 Strand ; and behind the light and play of her contemporary life looms, per- 
 petually, a dark background. Lawyers may wrangle and diff"er, but under- 
 neath all their differences lies this fact, which none can dispute — that Ireland 
 is wretched, miserable, demoralized, sick unto death. This is a legal trial. 
 It is also the viva voce history of a people — one of the dreariest, saddest his- 
 tories in the world. And when one listens to it, one feels, with something like 
 despair, how little Englishmen know of this mournful Ireland, which is only 
 twelve hours' journey from London. 
 
 THIRTEENTH DAY. 
 November 13. 
 
 The toughest work since the beginning of the trial. Pat Kennedy was 
 called as a Times witness, to prove, from his personal experience, intimidation 
 and outrage by thfe Land League. But The Times counsel had almost as 
 much trouble with Pat Kennedy as their learned brethren for the other side 
 had. He kept them all at it during two full hours. Not because he had so 
 much to say, but because he would say nothing. Neither the obstinacy of a 
 mule, nor the difficulty of getting a joke into a Scotchman, even by surgery, 
 came up to Pat's powers of impenetrability. Mr. Atkinson, Sir Charles 
 Russell, Mr. Lockwood, the President himself, Mr. Biggar, the Attorney- 
 General, all tried their cunning upon this most exasperating witness. For a 
 time, Pat's stolid obstinacy was amusing, but as the half-hours passed, it 
 became an intolerable bore. His manners were even more trying than his 
 taciturnity. He scowled. He darted angr}' glances through the corners of his 
 eyes. He tumbled about in his box like a menagerie specimen in his cage. 
 
28 Tuesday] Diary of [Nov. 13. 
 
 But he had an advantage over the menagerie specimen, inasmuch as he could 
 play the devil's tattoo — and he did it, with considerable perseverance and skill, 
 on the ledge in front of him, with the four fingers and thumb of his irreverent 
 left hand. When he was neither tumbling about, nor drumming, nor scowling, 
 he fell into a brown study — fixedly gazing downwards for a minute or two at a 
 time. After a spell of silence he would rap out an irascible, incoherent, 
 totally irrelevant and evasive answer. Then he would suddenly grab his black 
 billycock by the rim, as if he had made up his mind to leave all those chatter- 
 ing lawyers to find it out among themselves. 
 
 What was Mr. Patrick's grievance ? He had been annoyed in one way or 
 another — sometimes, it appeared, by a mild boycott — during most of the time 
 from 1 88 1 till the present date; annoyed for taking a farm from which a 
 certain widow^ had been evicted. He complained that the Leaguers in their 
 official character as Leaguers had always been urging him to give up his farm. 
 He was a Leaguer himself; he attended League meetings; but he denied that 
 he had received money from the police for giving them information about 
 League assemblages. One of the hardest struggles with Patrick was Sir 
 Charles Russell's effort to find out where he lived. At first, Patrick would not 
 tell, because (apparently) he objected to the London population knowing it. 
 It cost another tough struggle to find out from him how he lived. One of the 
 many questions on this point was Mr. Lockwood's, " Who is keeping you 
 now?" " I think T/ie Times,'''' said Patrick, after one of his long pauses. 
 
 Next came three witnesses, two of whom introduced novel and unexpected 
 elements into the trial. The first of the two was a young Galway farmer 
 named James Mannion. In Mr. Atkinson's hands he began tamely enough. 
 But all at once he gave out that he was sworn a member of the Fenian Society 
 in 1880, and that his brother leaguers of that period were Fenians — every one 
 of them, said he. At this sudden appearance of a Fenian Land Leaguer, all 
 present became silent and attentive. The Times counsel w^ere making their 
 first serious endeavour to connect the Land League and National League 
 directly with secret societies, whose aim was separation, and whose instrument 
 was murder ; and here w^as an ex-Fenian Land Leaguer who had turned against 
 his fellow-criminals. It w^as curious to hear this quiet and apparently 
 respectable and harmless young farmer of twenty-nine describe, with perfect 
 sang-froid, how, with a gang of five men, he went out one night with the 
 deliberate intention of murdering a man who had taken a farm from which the 
 mother (Mrs. Walsh) of one of the gang had been evicted. 
 
 Nor w^as "Fenian" the only title to which this young farmer confessed. 
 He called himself a Moonlighter ; and he described, with cool, matter-of-fact 
 brevity — pretty much as one who should talk about the weather — what the 
 Moonlighting method was. " Bedad, perhaps they bate them, perhaps they 
 shoot them, for paying their rint or taking an evicted farm." He declared that 
 all his Land League colleagues were, like himself, Fenians ; that in his part of 
 county Galw^ay it was all one whether you called them Fenians or Leaguers ; 
 that Land Leaguers, in their official capacity, gave warning notices ; that 
 boycottings and outrages of all sorts, including murders, were arranged at 
 League meetings ; and that the murder above referred to — the Lyden murder 
 — was planned at Walsh's house, where the Leaguers held their meetings. 
 One of the young Walshes was among the six selected to commit the crime ; 
 and he was hanged for it. 
 
 Nothing could be more definite than the witness's declaration, " I never 
 knew a Moonlighter who w^as not a member of the Land League." But in 
 cross-examination by Sir C. Russell he confessed to surprising ignorance of the 
 very A B C of Fenian history, declaring he had never heard of Fenianism 
 before 1880. At first he had said that " Fenian" and "Leaguer" w-ere 
 interchangeable. Now, when pressed by Sir Charles Russell, he declined to 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 14. 29 
 
 call the priest-president of his local branch in 1880 a Fenian. After wavering 
 for some time between conflicting statements, the witness ended by affirming 
 that all the Leaguers he knew were Fenians. 
 
 The next witness was — by his own account — a greater unfortunate, or a 
 worse reprobate, than Farmer IMannion. The two informers had travelled 
 together to London, and, said this second witness, Peter Flaherty, I had 
 "another woman along with me." (Great laughter.) Even Sir James 
 Hannen's grave features relaxed into a smile. Mr. Flaherty was not so 
 neatly dressed as Farmer Mannion. He was plainly, almost roughly 
 attired ; but, like Mannion, he looked as respectable as a churchwarden. 
 Yet, without a blush, without the ghost of a shadow of a trace of shyness 
 or awkwardness — did he admit that he went quite prepared to commit, or 
 assist in committing, murder eight years ago at the house of a man named 
 O'Neill ; and that if he had to betray his confederates over again under 
 the same circumstances he would do it without the slightest compunction. 
 Flaherty said he joined the League in 1880, and he gave the names of the 
 leading official leaguers — Ruane, Macdonald, Mulcarren, and others — the 
 first-named of whom flits, like a sinister figure, through these criminal stories of 
 discontented Galway, and was the most prominent figure in the outrages 
 described by the preceding witness, Mannion. 
 
 He next joined "another society" — on which occasion, he said, he swore 
 loyalty to the " Irish Republic." He described with great minuteness how at 
 a meeting of Land Leaguers he had been delegated, with a number of men, to 
 go and carry off" O'Neill's cattle and sheep ; and how it had been arranged at 
 that meeting that O'Neill's herd should be shot if he interfered. All this was 
 Land Leaguers' work — according to this informer's testimony. His examina- 
 tion-in-chief was conducted by Mr. Murphy, and his cross-examination by Mr. 
 Reid, Q.C., whose cutting, contemptuous questions seemed to make but small 
 impression upon his thick moral hide. My business, he explained tersely, was 
 "to go moonlighting whenever I was asked to." And he further explained 
 that he had turned against his fellow moonlighters because they unjustly 
 accused him of the " guilt " of having warned a man whose life and property 
 were in danger. 
 
 Yes, he exclaimed, later, he would have gone on moonlighting and murder- 
 ing — by order — if one of his fellow- Leaguers had not fired at him under the 
 misapprehension above named. This , man Flaherty turned out to be as 
 ignorant of the social history of his own part of Galway as the Moonlighter 
 who preceded him. Whatever the "secret" society was to which he belonged, 
 he had never heard of the " Irish Repubhcan Brotherhood " ! 
 
 Having done, for the time being, with county Galway, T/ie Times counsel 
 drew upon their trans-Atlantic resources, and produced a witness named 
 Flanergan to prove how, in 1879 and subsequently, and under the management 
 of the Irish president of a Land League branch at Pittsburg, money and arms 
 were collected in America for use in Western Ireland. But as soon as he 
 had made his statement the Court adjourned. 
 
 FOURTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 14. 
 
 To-DAY Mr. Michael Davitt displayed the gift of a quick and close cross- 
 examiner. He operated upon the informer Flanergan, the American, 
 who had already appeared in the box. According to Flanergan's story, 
 
30 Wednesday] Diary of [Nov. 14. 
 
 a Land League official named Meaney had, in conjunction with O'Donovan 
 Rossa and Patrick Ford, collected money from him and others— money for 
 the purchase of arms to be conveyed secretly to Ireland. Flanergan looked 
 very foolish as he confessed how he had misappropriated *' two revolvers " 
 that had been entrusted to him in America, for two persons in Ireland. And 
 when sharply and severely cross-examined by Mr. Davittas to the organization 
 (the Hibernian Friendly Society) of which he claimed to be a member, he 
 betrayed almost total ignorance. He knew nothing of the constitution of the 
 society of which, said Mr. Davitt, "I am a member myself." However, he 
 declared he had paid his weekly dollar subscription. Flanergan slipped side- 
 ways out of the witness-box, and Mike Hoarty took his place. 
 
 Mike had been a Fenian. Unlike the informers who appeared yesterday, 
 Mike Hoarty turned out to be a singularly intelligent witness. He gave his 
 answers promptly, clearly, and to the point. Mike Hoarty was in 1879-80 
 a member of the Committee of the Land League branch of his own locality, 
 which was situated about three miles from the town of Galway ; and the parish 
 priest was president of the branch, and a young doctor was its secretary. 
 
 But instead of cursing the Land League, ex-Fenian Mike rather blessed it. 
 The only object of the League was — as far as Mike knew — to keep the tenants 
 in "unity" for the purpose of prevailing upon the landlords to concede rent 
 reductions. Mike declared his belief that the League Committee never 
 passed a single resolution to boycott anybody ! But the thing was talked 
 about in an informal manner, according to Mike's testimony. Though Mike 
 had himself been a Fenian "for four months," he did not believe that any of 
 his fellow members on the League Committee were Fenians. And though his 
 house had been moonlighted and fired into, he declined to connect the offence 
 with the action of the League. He gave the Land League Committee of his 
 parish a high character. All its members were, he said, respectable farmers. 
 A son of Balaam, with a vengeancel! But he was not the only Times witness 
 up to date, who, when put into the box, declined to curse. 
 
 Mike Hoarty also contradicted flatly the favourable accounts already given 
 in this trial by constables and landlords, as to the prosperity of Galway in 
 1879-80. " Distress then ? " "Indeed there was," he exclaimed, nodding 
 emphatically and folding his arms. " It was not possible for the people to 
 pay the rents demanded of them and live." Sir Charles Russell then read out 
 some extracts from the official account of the ReHef Funds of 1879-80; 
 gloomy accounts they were. Was that so ? asked Sir Charles. " Yes," Mike 
 again exclaimed, nodding his head, " that's a very fair " description of the 
 state of things. 
 
 Another point upon which Mike contradicted the landlord and constabulary 
 witnesses was the state of the country before 1879. As the reader will 
 remember, the police witnesses in this trial have declared that till the rise of 
 the Land League the occupation of evicted farms attracted hardly any notice. 
 But Mike Hoarty declared that as long as he could recollect land-grabbing was 
 under a social ban. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson now produced a witness — Constable Creagh, who arrested the 
 four moonlighters who attacked Mike Hoarty's house. Among these moon- 
 lighters was one whose National League membership ticket was produced. 
 This moonlighter belonged to the "Michael Davitt " branch of the League. 
 But nothing was elicited in the examination of this constable to show that the 
 Land League branch was implicated in the outrage. It was only shown that 
 an individual leaguer had been engaged in a moonlighting expedition. But 
 what followed was more interesting. Constable Creagh — like, as already said, 
 his fellow-constables in this inquiry — stated that, until the Land League arose 
 in 1879, h^ ^^^ never heard of declarations against payment of rent, nor even 
 of the word " land-grabbing." " Was it part of a policeman's duty to report 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 14. 31 
 
 upon crimes in his district, and send the returns to his superiors?" asked Sir 
 Charles Russell. " Yes," repHed the constable. The importance of the 
 question and its answer speedily appeared, for Sir Charles Russell produced the 
 Parliamentary Blue Book of Agrarian Crimes for the whole of 1879, a docu- 
 ment which gave a list, for both divisions of Galway, of threatening letters, of 
 house-burnings, of slaughter of stock, as punishment for payment of unabated 
 rent — many of these offences and crimes being shown to have occurred in the 
 early part of the year, before the League came into being, and while, according 
 to landlord and constabulary testimony, the relations between landlord and 
 tenant were peaceful and pleasant. 
 
 Nor did the testimony of the next witness — also a constable — fix responsi- 
 bility upon the particular League branch mentioned, for the boycotting of a 
 man who had hired out his cars to the police. The boycotting notices were 
 issued "by order," but by whose order was not clear. However, their 
 diction was noteworthy. The car-owner was described as a "vile wretch," 
 and the man with whom he had dealings a " vile worm. " The words "by 
 order " appeared to have suggested a thought to Mr. Davitt, who asked the 
 constable whether he had ever heard of "bogus notices," and of certain 
 newspaper correspondents who had put up bogus notices of their own in order 
 that they might have some exciting " news " for London. 
 
 The next witness, during one brief moment of his life, fancied that even a 
 moonlighter might be a jocular person ; but he soon found out his mistake, 
 and acted accordingly. This witness was a keen-faced, dark-eyed, iron-grey, 
 bolt upright, dapper little warrior, who, after he left the army, took service 
 with a boycotted landlord. Armed with a gun, he went to cut his employer's 
 grass. 
 
 At last the inevitable moonlighter came, in the dead of the night, 20th 
 of May, 1882. At first " I thought it was a joke." But when the moonlighter 
 fired, ex-warrior Ford took down his gun from among the rafters, followed the 
 moonlighter, and gave him the " contints " "between the shoulders." 
 Having told his story, Mr. Ford fired (in a metaphorical sense) a shot at the 
 Land League : like the constables and landlords who have appeared in this 
 trial, he maintained that until the League appeared he had never heard of 
 " land-grabbing." 
 
 Their lordships' attention was next directed to the famous district of Wood- 
 ford, and the action of the National League there since 1885. The opening 
 statement was made by the Attorney-General. His statement was an attempt 
 to establish a direct connection between outrages there and the speeches ma 
 by the National League leaders — not only local leaders, such as Mr. John 
 Roche, Mr. Pat Keary, Father Egan, Father Coen, " Doctor " Tully of the 
 "pills" (bullets), Mr. John Sweeney; but also the parliamentary leaders, 
 directly and by name, such as Mr. Dillon, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Matt 
 Harris, and Mr. Sheehy. Mr. Michael Davitt's name was also named in the 
 Attorney-General's list of accused. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster's first witness — an important witness — was Sub- 
 Inspector Murphy, of the constabulary. Father Coen, it may be here ex- 
 plained, is parish priest and president of the Woodford branch of the National 
 League — perhaps the most resolute and best drilled branch of the League in 
 Ireland. Mr. Pat Keary is its secretary. The Woodford district is one of the 
 " hottest " in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Davitt, in cross-examining a herd from this district, made an allusion 
 which must have added to the stock of Irish history possessed by his listeners. 
 It was an allusion to the Secret Society of " Steel Boys " — a strange name for 
 herds, who alone were members of it. Even the herds — according to Mr. 
 Davitt's suggestion — were associating, in the pre-League days, against the 
 landlord class. The Attorney- General gave brief summaries of a long series 
 
32 Friday] Diary of [Nov. i6. 
 
 of speeches delivered by the leaders, local and parliamentary, above-named. 
 Crimes hapjiened subsequently to the speeches, fos^ hoc, ergo propter hoc, 
 again Sir Richard's argument. 
 
 Then Sir Charles took the Attorney-General's witness — Sub-Inspector 
 Murphy — in hand. At first Mr. Murphy was fairly communicative of facts 
 tending to show that there was provocation — that is, eviction of a particularly 
 cruel character — and that disturbances /oi//t>z£/^c/ evictions. Mr. Murphy even 
 admitted that members of the constabulary subscribed for the relief of hardly- 
 pressed tenants. Then Mr. Murphy became much less communicative. In 
 spite of his position and wide jurisdiction in the force, he did not know that 
 the Land Courts were making great redactions ; he knew nothing about the 
 Cowper Commission — a confession at which Sir Charles was greatly surprised. 
 Sir Charles next addressing himself to a long list of agrarian offences, 
 sent by Mr. Murphy to his superiors, Mr. Murphy made the admission that in 
 his report he described the motives, or rather motive, partly from hearsay — i.e., 
 on the authority of his surbordinates — and that in some cases both he and his 
 subordinates inferred the motive from what they knew of the state of the 
 country. Here Sir Charles was specially dealing with alleged intimidation of 
 people who had refused to join the National League. And Mr. Murphy, 
 according to his own statement, did not remember a single case in which any 
 of the tenants to whom he had spoken on the matter, declared that they were 
 intimidated because they refused to join. And yet, exclaimed Sir Charles, 
 turning to the Bench and making an expressive gesture with his hands, " he 
 says he considers himself justified in making that report." Sir Charles Russell 
 was at his best. 
 
 FIFTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November i6. 
 
 Colonel Saunderson was one of the earliest arrivals. He and Mr. Lock- 
 wood, Q.C., shook hands with a cordiality as remarkable as the warmth with 
 which they attack each other's convictions in the House of Commons. *' Shall 
 we move the adjournment of the House at half-past one ? " suggested Mr. 
 Lockwood, adjusting his wig. This was in allusion to the Court's usual interval 
 for luncheon. After lounging for some time on the back benches below the 
 gallery, the gallant colonel migrated round to the jury-box. Mr. John Dillon 
 also appeared — for the first time since the trial began. He sat down quietly and 
 unnoticed, at the corner of the second bench among the juniors. Punctually 
 on the stroke of half-past ten the first witness. Farmer Kennedy, stepped into 
 the box. A Galway man, his evidence was merely a continuation of the 
 county history which had occupied the Court for the last few days. As a 
 proof of connection between the Land League and intimidation, his testimony 
 was inconclusive. It was also uninteresting. Everybody appeared bored, and 
 a low babble of gossip began long before Mr. Kennedy was done with. 
 
 But at the name of the next witness there came a sudden hush, and all eyes 
 were bent on the tall, pale, elegant, and sorrowful-looking lady, who ascended 
 noiselessly into the witness-box. This was Lady Mountmorres, widow of 
 the landlord who in September, iS8o, was murdered in Galway — still this 
 county Galway of misery and crime. Replying to Sir Henry James, Lady 
 Mountmorres told her story, at first almost inaudibly, but with calm self-pos- 
 session, how up to 1879 there had been nothing but good feeling between her 
 husband and tenants ; how after that date, when the Land League meetings 
 
Friday'] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. i6. 33 
 
 began, the tenants became rough and rude, and refused to pay rent ; how her 
 husband took out an ejectment notice against one of them, named Sweeney ; 
 how a League meeting followed, and how the murder of her husband was per- 
 petrated several weeks after the meeting. 
 
 Then Sir Charles Russell cross-examined. The object of this cross-examina- 
 tion was to find out from Lady Mountmorres whether she could declare posi- 
 tively that besides the rent dispute there was no other cause or causes of 
 hostihty between Lord Mountmorres and his tenants — causes in existence 
 before as well as after the time when the League meetings began. Lady 
 Mountmorres answered that she was unaware of any — that she was unaware 
 his conduct as a Petty Sessions magistrate had made him unpopular ; and that 
 she had not heard of any dispute between him and the people, on the ground 
 of his alleged refusal of a long-existing right of way across his estate. Nor 
 could she give any precise dates or localities of League meetings. She was 
 sure that the meetings preceded the sudden and hostile change in the attitude 
 of the tenants. There was a certain sharpness— as of rising indignation— in 
 her quick "No," when Sir Charles Russell pressed his question about the right 
 of way. Resolutely, but as gently as one in his position could do, Sir Charles 
 Russell continued to insist on the question of dates. And then it was noticed 
 that Lady Mount morres's head drooped ; her eyes half-closed ; she sank into 
 her chair in a fainting condition. It is scarcely necessary to add that both 
 T/ie Times counsel and Sir Charles Russell refrained from putting any more 
 questions. 
 
 Lady Mountmorres's general statement concerning the cause of enmity 
 against her husband was supported by the next witness, a police-constable, who 
 said that as soon as the Land League was started he noticed a change in the 
 tenants' demeanour, not only to Lord Mountmorres, but to other landlords as 
 well. He declared, pointedly, that Lord Mountmorres became unpopular 
 because of his known opposition to the League — an opposition which he pro- 
 fessed in public. This general testimony, however, was considerably shaken 
 by the cross-examination to which Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. 
 Lockwood subjected him. It came out that Lord Mountmorres had been under 
 police protection months before the League was started in the district. So then, 
 argued Sir Charles Russell, this landlord became unpopular long before he took 
 eviction proceedings against Sweeney, which was in July, i8So. Again, in reply 
 to Mr. Davitt, the witness stated that the people knew or believed their land- 
 lord to be in constant communication with Dublin Castle, and that this also 
 increased his unpopularity. Finally, the witness admitted that he could not give 
 the names of any who were members of the local branch of the League in 
 1879. " I was at that very meeting of which you have spoken," said^Mr. 
 Davitt. " Did you not hear me warn the people against violence? " "No," the 
 aaswer was. Not much light, then, was thrown on the origin of the crime by 
 this witness's testimony. Nor by that of Constable O'Connor, who followed 
 him, and who was present at a meeting of the local League branch the very 
 day after the murder. There was, said O'Connor, an attempt at hooting, in 
 the crowd, when the murder was mentioned, but a man on the platform held up 
 his hand deprecatingly, and said something to the effect that he (Lord Mount- 
 morres) was " gone now." 
 
 James Bermingham, who enjoyed the double distinction of being a process- 
 server and a tenant of an evicted farm, told a story of six years' steady boy- 
 cotting from '81— a dreary interval enhvened occasionally by the destruction of 
 his walls, by maimings of his sheep and cattle, by bullets coming through his 
 windows — but there was in his testimony nothing that fixed responsibility upon 
 the League. Mr. Bermingham was less interesting than his herd, Morgan, 
 who now stepped, with a stubborn, jerky movement of his body, into the 
 witness-box. 
 
34 Friday] Diary of [Nov. i6. 
 
 A very small man — with small eyes, big jaws, big Tartar cheek-bones, long, 
 regular-Irish upper lip, and big mouth, tightly shut — was Morgan the herds- 
 man. Because his master had eaten sour grapes, Morgan's teeth were set 
 on edge. Less figuratively, herd Morgan was suffering for another's sins. 
 *' The bullets came in through the doore, begor" — because he worked for a 
 patriot who served writs. 
 
 Morgan's style in the box caused the greatest merriment. " Ah-h ? " he would 
 drawl through his nose, throwing his head back and leering sideways through 
 the corners of his small eyes, when questions were put to him. Sometimes he 
 would peer through his half-shut little eyes for a minute at a time before con- 
 descending to reply. " Don't look so suspiciously at me," pleaded Sir Charles 
 Russell. "Ah-h?" retorted Morgan, through his nose, "ah-h," sticking his 
 heavy chin out. The lawyers bored and irritated Morgan with questions about 
 his boycotting. He rapped out a short, angry assertion to the effect that he 
 had been boycotted — but when questioned by Sir Charles Russell, he made it 
 tolerably evident that in some instances, at least, he only fancied some shop- 
 keepers would refuse to sell if he went to buy. " You call that boycotting," 
 exclaimed Sir Charles in surprise. "Ah-h?" said Morgan, once more, 
 through his nose, and sticking out his big chin, in a gesture of interrogation. 
 
 Did he know anything about the Land League, which the prosecution sought 
 to make answerable for all these crimes ? But Morgan's patience was exhausted. 
 He snapped his lips together tight as a vice, as if he defied all the Q.C.'s in 
 Christendom to get anything more out of him. His head went back, cocked 
 •on one side. His little eyes twinkled. After a while he relented, " I know," 
 he rasped out as fast and contemptuously as he could — " I know nothing about 
 anybody except what I know about my own self." " You say you have had 
 five pounds for coming to London ; did they promise you more ? " " Ah-h," 
 he snarled forth ; and giving the Court to understand that he didn't care a 
 "ha'p'orth" whether he got more or not, he dived out of his box into the crowd, 
 and became lost to sight. 
 
 Only one other witness from Galway followed Morgan. This was a black- 
 smith who was boycotted for shoeing a horse belonging to the boycotted 
 farmer, Bermingham. As far as the blacksmith's testimony went, it exonerated 
 the Land League. The leaguers, he said, " told me at their meeting that they 
 had nothing whatever to do with the boycott put upon me ; and I believe 
 them." 
 
 At this stage of the proceedings Sir Henry James intimated that he would 
 ■now leave Galway and proceed to county Kerry. But Sir Charles Russell 
 insisted that the case for Galway must first be finished. All that you have done, 
 said he, is to prove the outrages ; you are now bound to fix the guilt of these 
 ■outrages upon the persons in your list of accused. Sir James Hannen agreed 
 with Sir Charles, but finally ruled that T/ie Times counsel should be allowed to 
 proceed in their own way. 
 
 To the moonlighting county accordingly the inquiry was now directed. 
 And the very first witness from moonlighting Kerry, Farmer Conway, flatly 
 declared that the Land League not only denounced crime in general, but also 
 the very outrage — a shot in the ankle — of which he himself was the victim. 
 As Conway was a Times witness, the declaration appeared to stagger The 
 Ti7nes counsel. Mr. Atkinson re-examined him, and then he made a state- 
 ment to the effect that he was unaware of any such resolution by the League ! 
 So that little was gained from this witness either way. 
 
 But the Kerry man who followed Conway, a "bog ranger" named Sullivan, 
 was much more precise. " The League even took my part in my quarrel with my 
 tenant," declared Sullivan. The League proposed a compromise, which 
 Sullivan accepted. 
 
 Hearing all this, the Attorney-General asked Sullivan whether any person 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 20. 35 
 
 or persons had talked to him during the luncheon half-hour (which had just 
 ended). Had the two Mr. Harringtons seen him ? In an instant Mr. T. 
 Harrington was on his legs, warmly protesting. " An impudent suggestion on 
 the Attorney-General's part ! " exclaimed Mr. Edward Harrington. " This is 
 irregular, and as a member of the Bar you know it ! " the President interposed, 
 sharply. It was like a " row " in the House of Commons, except that ^Mr. T. 
 Harrington was in his wig and gown, and that for Mr. Speaker, or the First Lord, 
 there was the President of the Parnell Commission. Mr. Harrington, growing 
 more and more indignant, went on talking so loudly as to extinguish the 
 President's voice. This Sir James Hannen could not brook ; and, throwing 
 down his pen, he declared the Court adjourned, and he retired abruptly, 
 followed by Mr. Justice Day and Mr. Justice Smith. 
 
 Then the court was filled with a loud babble of talk and laughter. Mr. 
 Lockwood stretched his arms and legs, gazed at the ceiling, and was hugely 
 amused. Mr. Waddy, coming in in his wig and gown, fixed his eyes in a round 
 stare of surprise, smiled, chuckled, and hopped and bounced about the place, 
 whispering into his friends' ears. Mr. Harrington packed up his blue bag, as 
 if, like the philosophic 'coon in the Yankee story, he anticipated the worst. 
 In nine minutes the Commissioners returned. Mr. Harrington, rising at once, 
 made a perfectly becoming apology, and so the "incident" ended. But one 
 regrets to say that the Attorney- General made no apology to Mr. Harrington. 
 
 Net result of Sullivan's evidence — no grudge on his part (but much the 
 reverse) against the Land League, in his portion of moonlighting Kerry. The 
 testimony of subsequent witnesses from Kerry was less favourable to that 
 organization — the testimony, however, being indirect. One witness declared 
 that moonlighting was unknown in Kerry before the rise of the League. One 
 of the most interesting of these witnesses was a white-haired, white -whiskered, 
 big-headed, malformed, dwarfish peasant, named Reagh, whose right ear the 
 moonlighters had cut off. He pointed to the vacant space with his left hand. 
 With a violent emphasis which amused the audience, he replied, when asked 
 if he was aware that the Kerry League denounced crime, that he knew nothing 
 whatever of that body. Seven Kerry witnesses were examined before the 
 Court rose. One of them stated that many secret societies lately existed in 
 Kerry. And the last of them, a herd, who had been shot at for working for 
 an unpopular landlord, made the straightforward admission that he did not 
 believe the League was in any way concerned with the crime. 
 
 SIXTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 20. 
 
 The investigation into the squalid tragedy of county Kerry was resumed. 
 But before the first witness of the day was called. Sir Richard Webster rose to 
 make a formal and solemn application to their lordships. He accused T/ie 
 Kerry Sentinel of November 14th of having published an article which was at 
 once an intimidation of witnesses and a gross contempt of court. Some of the 
 expressions which he quoted were certainly very strong — such as that at the 
 beginning of this trial the judges were spotless, but that they were now unable 
 to veil their manifest prejudices. The article also spoke of their lordships as 
 creatures of the Government and of The Ti?nes " conspirators. " Handing in the 
 number of The Kerry Sentinel, the Attorney-General remarked that its pro- 
 prietor was one of the witnesses in the case — one of the Parnellite members 
 
36 Tuesdayl Diary of [Nov. 20. 
 
 directly charged by T/ie Times — and that he was at present in court. He 
 meant, of course, Mr. Edward Harrington, M.P., whosat, quite unconcernedly, 
 between Mr. Biggar and Mr. Michael Davitt. The Attorney-General, in view 
 of the gravity of the ofifence, requested that their lordships should take imme- 
 diate proceedings. But after a brief debate between him and Mr. Reid, Q.C 
 (who is the counsel retained for the defence of Mr. E. Harrington under the 
 general charge), it was agreed, with the President's consent, that further con- 
 sideration of the matter should be postponed until next day ; because, as Mr. 
 Reid complained, the Attorney-General's application came upon him by 
 surprise. The Attorney-General explained that he himself had seen The Kerry 
 SeJittnel only a few minutes before. 
 
 Golletty, a farmer from near Castleisland, in Kerry, the first witness called, 
 occupied the Court for more than an hour. Besides being a small farmer, he 
 was a sort of sub-process server and bailiff ; he used to point out the defaulting 
 tenants' houses where writs had to be served. By his own account, Golletty 
 was not much of a hero. Afraid to live in his house, he used to sleep in and 
 about the ditches. But at last his enemies found him ; and he gave the Gourt 
 a graphic and vigorous description of the night attack upon him — an attack in 
 which the weapons (his enemies' weapons : he himself was unarmed) were a 
 spade, a stick, and a revolver. The spade cut his head open, and the revolver 
 shattered his leg, which had to be amputated. 
 
 In that strange country, Ireland, the constable is sometimes the undertaker ; 
 and ]\Ir. Golletty told nothing very new when he stated that his neighbours 
 refused to supply him with a coffin for his dead child, and that he was indebted 
 to the police for having procured him one. 
 
 Had the League anything to do with the spading and shooting of Golletty ? 
 In reply to Sir Gharles Russell, the witness admitted that in his parish there 
 was, up to the date of the attack, no branch of the Land League, though there 
 was one at a place six miles off. Another important statement by the witness 
 was that he thought rents were too high all over Kerry ; important because 
 one of the objects of the cross-examinations by Sir Gharles Russell and his 
 colleagues was to show that crime and outrage were the fruits of landlord 
 oppression, and not of what is called agitation by the Land and National 
 Leagues. 
 
 But in this case Sir Gharles tried to prove that the attack on the witness was 
 a punishment for his (alleged) seduction of a young woman in his service, and 
 that his assailants were the brothers or other relatives of servant-girls whom he 
 was said to have seduced. And now Mr. G-olletty waxed very wroth. He 
 glared angrily at Sir Gharles. He denounced the stories about seduction as 
 fabrications ; folding his hands over his knee, and throwing his head back, he 
 observed with an air of profound contempt that Kerry people who were capable 
 of murder were capable of inventing any falsehood. Golletty's testimony 
 appeared to establish nothing very definite beyond the fact that for some people 
 life in county Kerry has its perils — a fact of which the world is sufficiently 
 well aware. 
 
 The next witness had a sorrowful tale to tell — the murder of her husband. 
 Mrs. Leahy appeared to be seventy years old at least. She was dressed in 
 deep black, with her black shawl drawn over head, hoodwise. She had a 
 fine, rich voice. She must have been beautiful, or at least pretty, in her 
 young days. Mr. Leahy — her husband — had taken an " evicted " grazing 
 farm. And so the moonlighters came when the poor old couple lay asleep. 
 Old Mr. Leahy was forced on his knees. She knelt beside him, and put her 
 "arm round his neck." Here she paused for a moment, and the poor old 
 lady's head drooped. The old man was shot. 
 
 Now, before jNIrs. Leahy was called, Mr. Atkinson read from a Kerry 
 paper a Land League notice denouncing Leahy as a land-grabber, advising 
 
TnesdayY the P am ell Commission, [Nov. 20. 37 
 
 people to have nothing to do with him, and ordering word to be sent to Land 
 League branches. But Sir Charles Russell, to nullify the effect of this notice 
 {the notice preceded the murder) read an extract from T/ie Kerry Setiiinel, in 
 which the "revolting" crime was denounced in the strongest manner. 
 "Fearful demon of bloodshed" was one of the Sentinel's expressions. 
 Moreover, Mrs. Leahy, in answer to Sir Charles Russell, said that all her 
 neighbours showed her the deepest sympathy in her bereavement, and that 
 they condemned the crime. 
 
 After Mrs. Leahy left the witness-box, two constables were examined as to 
 their knowledge of the circumstances attending her husband's death. They 
 both said that a man named Jeremiah MacMahon, secretary of the local 
 branch of the Land League, had been suspected of participation in the 
 murder of Leahy, as also in other offences, such as the posting of threatening 
 letters. One of these two witnesses, District Inspector Craig, stated that in 
 Keny there were many secret societies at the time of Leahy's murder. 
 
 Another witness who declined to accuse the League appeared in the 
 person of a Kerry farmer named O'Connor, two of whose servants were 
 threatened because, while they worked for him, he himself was boycotted. 
 O'Connor, however, "cleared" himself, as one of these servants expressed it 
 in the witness-box, by "not paying his rent," This notion of a way of 
 clearing one's character greatly amused the Court. But now, when O'Connor 
 himself stepped into the box, he declared that he never had been boycotted ; 
 that he had never received any threatening letters ; that he and his friends 
 were all members of the Land League — the president of which, the parish 
 priest, actually took his side. O'Connor, The Times witness, did anything 
 but curse the League. Had he been talked to since he came to London ? If 
 so, had he told a story different to that which he had communicated to The 
 Tivies witness ? Yes, he told the Attorney-General that he had been talked to ; 
 but he stuck to it manfully that his only desire was to give full and fair 
 evidence, and that no money could induce him to tell his interviewers anything 
 1 lUt the truth. Sir Charles Russell smiled as if he thought The Times had 
 been " sold again." 
 
 The next witness entertained a friendly feeling even for the wretched tribe 
 of moonlighters. He refused to give up some land. So they fired at him ; 
 "sure they only gave me a few grains of powther, which I picked out myself." 
 He didn't think it worth while to see the police on the subject. The constable 
 witness who testified in this man's (M'Carthy's) case was unable to connect the 
 '" powther " grains with the League ; and he further admitted there were 
 secret societies in Kerry. 
 
 There followed five other cases, all about moonlighting, all attended with 
 shooting, some with murder. .The first of these five, the murder of Farmer 
 Hickey, was reported at the time among the Kerry people to be merely the 
 rt.^^ult of a family feud, with which the League had nothing to do. Sir 
 Charles Russell tried to elicit some definite statements on this point from 
 Hickey's widow, but unsuccessfully. Sir Charles Russell also read out an 
 extract from Mr. Harrington's paper, The Kerry Sentinel, in which the 
 "cowardly and bloodthirsty" murder was strongly denounced; and the 
 Sentinel was and is the organ of the League in Kerry. 
 
 The only clue to the authorship of the next crime, the shooting of a man 
 named Williams, was the signature of " Captain Moonlight " — who " by God's 
 right hand" threatened all "mean hounds" and "emergency wretches" who 
 worked for " hellish evictors." It will be seen that the captain's style is more 
 forcible than elegant. 
 
 Another Balaamite appeared. His name was Dowling. He had been shot 
 by the moonlighters; but in his opinion the moonlighters were not leaguers 
 ■ — in fact he was a member of the League himself at that time ; all his 
 
38 Wednesday] Diary of [Nov. 21. 
 
 "respectable neighbours " were members. The leaguers, he added, "never 
 gave me any annoyance for paying my rent." Sir Henry James cross-examined 
 Mr. Dowling very severely ; and yet he was Sir Henry's own witness. 
 
 The Kerry man who followed Dowling was still more emphatic in defend- 
 ing the Land League. He got into trouble for paying his rent. But said he, 
 in answer to Mr. Reid, " I swear on my oath that to the best of my belief the 
 League never had anything to do with the outrage upon me." He didn't 
 know who his assailants were, " any more than the man in the moon." 
 
 Lastly came the inevitable tragedy ; and Miss Cur tin, a tall young lady of 
 distinguished presence and manners, stepped into the witness-box to tell the 
 story of her father's murder in the winter of 1885. Miss Curtin is one of the 
 heroines of the social war in Ireland. In a low, soft voice — with now and 
 then a tone of half-weariness, half-indifference — she told the whole story 
 which shocked the English public at the time ; how, when the moonlighters 
 came, she ran upstairs for firearms ; how the shots came in through the door ; 
 how she gripped one of the murderers — finally depriving him of his gun — 
 while her brother struggled with him ; how the servants obeyed her orders to 
 go for the priest and the doctor, but how they refused to go for the police ; 
 and how the family were subjected to petty persecutions, including boycotting, 
 and the breaking of their pew in chapel, after the funeral. Said Miss Curtin, 
 " the curate who spoke kindly of my father at Mass was boycotted ; and for 
 twelve months after the murder the priest, president of the League, only called 
 at our house once." At the conclusion of Miss Curtin's evidence-in-chief the 
 Court rose. 
 
 SEVENTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 21. 
 
 In anticipation of a little " scene " over the Harrington incident, the seats 
 below and the galleries above were crowded for some time before the Com- 
 missioners entered. On the Solicitors' Bench Mr. Edward Harrington and 
 Mr. T. Harrington were engaged in lively but inaudible debate with Mr. 
 Reid, who once or twice shook his head. The meaning of the head-shake 
 appeared as soon as their lordships entered, for they had scarcely taken their 
 seats when Mr. Reid rose to announce that as Mr. Edward Harrington had 
 not seen fit to take his advice, he (Mr. Reid) did not consider himself in a 
 position to say anything. Their lordships paused for a moment, as if they 
 expected Mr. Edward Harrington to offer some explanation. Mr. Harrington 
 said nothing. Sir James Hannen, in a low, measured tone of quiet severity, 
 asked him if he had anything to say. Xjpon this Mr. Edward Harrington 
 rose, and merely remarked that he accepted full responsibility for T/ie Kerry 
 Sentinel article. Then the Commissioners, promptly rising, adjourned. They 
 returned in six minutes. Sir James Hannen remarked that it would be 
 " wasting words to point out how serious was the contempt of Court." He 
 spoke of its " personal insults," and of the bad effects that might follow if the 
 offence should remain unpunished. The punishment pronounced by Sir James 
 Hannen was a fine of ;!^50o. 
 
 The examination of Miss Curtin was then resumed. The Times counsel 
 evidently attached great importance to this case, doing their utmost to bring 
 the guilt of the Curtin outrage to the doors of the National League. For 
 example, Sir Henry James was at pains to elicit the fact that some time before 
 his murder INIr. Curtin had been asked by leaguers, or persons who pre- 
 sumably were leaguers, whether he had paid the unabated rent. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 21. 39 
 
 On the other hand, Sir Charles Russell put to Miss Curtin a series of 
 questions, to which Miss Curtin replied that, as far as she knew, her father had 
 no quarrel with the League ; that Mr. Alfred Webb, treasurer of the central 
 branch of the National League, sympathized with her family in their affliction, 
 and was anxious to assist them in every way. 
 
 Miss Curtin's replies clearly showed that her knowledge of the League, its 
 leaders, and its doings, was at that time extremely slight. 
 
 Miss Curtin's brother, who went into the witness-box when his sister left it, 
 was much more positive and definite. He himself had been a member of the 
 National League, and a regular attendant at its meetings. His father had 
 been one of its vice-presidents. He had no reason to believe the League had 
 had anything to do with the crime ; and he had even read resolutions in which, 
 local branches of the National League denounced the murder in the strongest 
 manner. 
 
 Then the evidence took another direction, when two members of the con- 
 stabulary came to be examined. The first of the two. Constable Meehan, 
 stated that Casey, one of the moonlighters implicated in the murder, was a 
 leaguer ; at all events he had seen him, with his green sash, attending League 
 meetings. This constable also described how, after the murder, the Curtin 
 family were hooted and insulted at chapel and elsewhere, and how, on these 
 occasions, he had never seen man or woman interfere to protect the widow 
 and her family from insult. And not only that, but according to the witness's 
 evidence, the parish priest's condolences (in chapel on Sunday) were addressed 
 not to Mr. Curtin's widow, but to the mother of the would-be murderer, 
 Sullivan, who was shot in the attack on Mr. Curtin. 
 
 A still worse example of popular demoralization in Kerry was given in the 
 testimony of Norah Fitzmaurice, who appeared in the witness-box a few 
 minutes after Miss Curtin left it. Norah's father was shot by her side on the 
 high-road at the beginning of the year. A number of cars passed, said Norah, 
 and many people on foot, yet not one gave her the slightest help. They 
 looked at her father's body and passed. " One of them remarked, ' He is not 
 dead yet,' and went on." When, after her father's funeral, Norah went to 
 chapel, most of the people rose and walked out. "They would not kneel 
 when I knelt." 
 
 So much for the social war. But from the lawyer's view-point, her most 
 important evidence was that in which she said that the people who left the 
 church were headed by the National League local secretary, a man named 
 Dowling. It was a servant of Bowling's who brought Norah's father the 
 notice to appear before a League Court, to answer to the charge of having 
 taken land from which Fitzmaurice's own brother had been removed. And 
 according to Norah's testimony, a League resolution was passed in October, 
 1887 — two or three months before the murder — in which James Fitzmaurice 
 (her father) was described as a base and inhuman person for having "grabbed" 
 his brother's land. Norah's story appeared to be a mixture of League politics 
 and paltry — but spiteful — family rivalries of a kind of which there have beea 
 several examples in the course of this trial. For instance, though the notice 
 above alluded to was in Dowhng's name, it was written by the assistant- 
 secretary, a person named Quilter, a relative of the Fitzmaurices. Quilter 
 had some dispute with them for their occupancy of the farm. T/ie Times 
 counsel having done their best to incriminate, or bring suspicion upon the 
 League, Mr. Asquith, on the Parnellite side, read from The Keriy Seiitinel 
 some passages in which the atrocious and cowardly murder of James Fitz- 
 maurice was condemned in unmeasured terms. Sir Charles Russell quoted 
 passages to the same effect from United Ireland. 
 
 There was one other important case. The first witness in it — Mr. Lennard, 
 gent for Lord Kenmare's Kerry estates — was one to whom the Attorney- 
 
40 Thursday] Diary of [Nov. 22. 
 
 General attached great importance. The whole of Mr. Lennard's examination- 
 in -chief was a careful and elaborate attempt to establish " a coincidence as 
 regards time between agrarian outrage and the League." These were the 
 Attorney-General's words. When asked if he believed there existed any such 
 coincidence, Mr. Lennard rapped out the word " Certainly " with a loud, 
 aggressive emphasis that amused his audience. " Certainly," said he ; and 
 " crime was stopped by the Coercion Act from 1882 to 1885 ; but it broke out 
 ^gain after 1885, when Mr. O'Brien, and Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Healy 
 came down to Kerry and made fearful speeches." Mr. Lennard laid terrific 
 emphasis upon the word " fearful." 
 
 Mr. Lennard was loud, communicative, and brimful of self-confidence. 
 He produced a long list of facts to prove the coincidence in time — Land 
 League warnings preceding payments of rent, and payments of rent 
 promptly followed by shooting and outrages of various kinds. But — 
 and this was Mr. Lennard's main point — until the Land League ap- 
 peared in Kerry, no tenants in Kerry ever combined against rent, ever 
 punished any one for taking an evicted farm, ever used the word " land- 
 grabbing." As for Mr. Lennard, he stated that for his own part he 
 had never heard the word land-grabbing before 1885 — an extraordinary 
 statement, to say the least. Kerry must have been a land of contentment, 
 according to this land agent's sworn testimony, until 1 88 1 and Mr. Parnell's 
 No-Rent Manifesto. And the Kerry people must have been patterns of meek- 
 ness, for though they were " blue with hunger " during the distress of 1879-80, 
 they refrained from agitation against the landlords. It was Mr. Lennard's 
 conviction that the leaguers spoiled the Kerry Paradise. There had, said 
 I\Ir. Lennard, been evictions in Kerry, even before the dreadful year of 
 leaguers — 1880-81, but not until the leaguers came did tenants barricade 
 their houses. The Attorney-Generaband Mr. Lennard talked away for nearly 
 two hours — Mr. Lennard breaking out every other half-minute into loud, 
 and uninvited, historical comments. After so long a spell of it, his audience 
 became tired. Just on the stroke of four he rewarded its patience. The 
 tenant, said he, " went off to America, and he left his farm behind him." 
 Mr. Lennard gazed slowly round about him, as if he wondered what the 
 lawyers and the others were laughing at. He will finish at the next sitting. 
 
 EIGHTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 22. 
 
 The court was less crow^ded to-day than at any time since the beginning of 
 the trial. Mr. Lennard's stores of historical and professional knowledge had 
 but small attraction for the London public. Yet Mr. Lennard, Lord Kenmare's 
 agent, was by far the readiest, the most intelligent, and the best informed witness 
 who had yet appeared. His examination-in-chief occupied nearly the whole of 
 yesterday afternoon's sitting, and nearly the whole of this morning's. Not 
 only was Mr. Lennard ready with his answer, on any point whatever, at an 
 instant's notice, but he w-as also equally prompt with corroborative documents. 
 Rent lists, letters. Land Leaguers' tickets of membership, statistics of all 
 descriptions, he drew, on the slightest encouragement, from a black bag — 
 which appeared to be as inexhaustible as the pocket whence Chamisso's grey- 
 coated personage could extract anything and everything from a telescope to 
 a horse. 
 
 Mr. Lennard was describing, with great gusto, how his model landlord, 
 
Xhtirsday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 22. 41 
 
 Lord Kenmare, had spent tens of thousands of pounds — State lent money, no 
 doubt, as Mr. Lennard frankly acknowledged — upon land improvements, 
 which brought the labouring class some ;^300 a week in wages. How much 
 of that was spent upon the landlord's mansion ? quickly asked Sir Charles. 
 ** Not a penny," was. the sharp reply — Mr. Lennard drawing himself up, with 
 a triumphant glance at Sir Charles. Mr. Lennard is a man who knows his 
 own mind. Whatever the value of his opinions may be, they are definite, and 
 fixed. The Arrears Bill? Why it was a curse, said Mr. Lennard, sharply; 
 in his opinion it turned honest men into rogues. In his opinion, too, the 
 League demoralized the very schoolchildren, and turned them into boycotters 
 and agitators ; and he illustrated this by a fluent, rapid story of a school whose 
 five hundred children left the place e7z masse — singing " God save Ireland " 
 — because among them were the children of one of Lord Kenmare's process- 
 servers. 
 
 Mr. Lennard's six hours' evidence was a sermon on the one text, that the 
 Land League and its successor, the National League, were unmitigated evils. 
 Was it possible, the Attorney-General asked, that secret societies might have 
 provoked the outrages on Lord Kenmare's Kerry property? " Certainly not," 
 repHed Mr. Lennard, with his characteristic readiness ; the coincidence in 
 time between the rise of the League and the astonishing change in popular 
 demeanour and conduct was such, in Mr. Lennard's estimation, as to imply, 
 necessarily, the relation between cause and effect. 
 
 From his well-filled black bag Mr. Lennard extracted letter after letter, in 
 which the writers — Lord Kenmare's own tenants — suggested to Mr. Lennard, 
 devices by which they might be enabled to pay their rents in full, while at the 
 same time making it appear to the leaguers that they were obstinately refusing 
 to pay without abatements. That the League was the cause of this terrorism 
 was proved, according to Mr. Lennard's testimony, by the fact that these 
 letters ceased during the three years 1882 to 1885, when the Crimes Act was 
 m operation. Up to October, 1881, the witness said, I used to be on the most 
 friendly terms with the tenants. But after that — when the League came into 
 being — the tenants scowled at Mr. Lennard and his friends, and even_ set the 
 dogs at them. That year 1 88 1 was the annus terribilis of Irish history as 
 understood by Mr. Lennard ; for up to that date— to take another of Mr. 
 Lennard's numerous illustrations — the sheriff could go over the estate and 
 evict a defaulter without let or hindrance, and without any subsequent risk of 
 disturbance and outrage ; but after that date, said Mr. Lennard, armies of 
 police and troops were required for evictions, and only lately he had employed 
 "four hundred troops" in evicting a single tenant! Ever since the Plan 
 "was sprung upon us," said the witness, things have been as in the years 
 1 88 1 and 1882, All that Mr. Lennard had to say about the League would 
 have satisfied even Mr. Balfour himself— all except one point. For he declared 
 that in Kerry the National League was at this moment as powerful as ever. 
 Yet Mr. Balfour, as Sir Charles Russell now reminded him, had pronounced 
 the League dead and gone. But Mr. Lennard bluntly gave him to understand 
 that he was in a better position than Irish constables and Secretaries to know 
 the real state of Ireland. 
 
 One of the most important of IMr. Lennard's statistical proofs of Lord 
 Kenmare's moderation and the Land League's violence was his list (which he 
 picked out with lightning speed from his black bag) of evictions on the Ken- 
 mare estates since 1874. Here is the substance of it. In the years 1874-S0 
 there were only two tenants permanently evicted, and forty-three tenants 
 who were et'icted were re-admitted as caretakers. In the years 188 1-8 
 there had been seventeen tenants permanently evicted, and 341 re-admitted 
 as caretakers. Allowing for the extra year in the latter period, the increase 
 was enormous ; and this increase Mr. Lennard attributed to League action. 
 
42 Thursday] Diary of [Nov. 22. 
 
 That is to say, he maintained on oath, that he believed most of those tenants 
 were quite able to pay, but that the League prevented them from paying. 
 Finally he averred, solemnly and emphatically, that he never evicted a tenant 
 whom he knew to be really impecunious. He never pressed those who were 
 "blue with hunger" in the years 1879-80. The sum and substance of this 
 estate agent's testimony was that — with the exception of a smallish remnant of 
 really poor tenants, from whom he was content to receive what they were able 
 to pay — Lord Kenmare's tenants never had any just cause for complaint. 
 
 But in the cross-examination conducted by Sir Charles Russell, Mr. 
 Lockwood, Mr. Harrington, and Mr. Michael Davitt, the witness made 
 many admissions which rubbed the optimistic gloss off his main story. A 
 widow's farm, the tenant-right of which the Land Commissioners valued at 
 ;^i,ioo, was bought up by the landlord for ;r^io. He appeared to think, 
 although he expressed himself with considerable hesitation, that if a tenant, 
 fell into arrears through bad harvests he was bound to find the landlord's rent 
 from other sources than the land. The landlord's purchase of the widow's 
 tenant-right was made at a time when there was an immense fall in prices, and 
 when Parliament was in consequence intervening on the cultivator's behalf. 
 
 To show how badly off the people of South-western L'eland were in those 
 years, Mr. Lockwood called the witness's attention to a tale that sounded like 
 a voice from the grave. This was the letter which, after his return from his 
 first visit to the Soudan, General Gordon wrote from Glengariffe, near the 
 Kerry borders, eight years ago. In his characteristic style Gordon described 
 the state of the people as worse than that of any other people whom he knew, 
 and offered a thousand pounds to any landlord who would live a tenant's life in. 
 a tenant's cabin for one week. 
 
 Mr. Lennard did not attach much importance to the great Gordon's- 
 personal testimony ; Mr. Lennard thought Galvvay and part of Clare were 
 worse off than Kerry. Nor did INIr. Lennard appear to think over-highly of 
 General Buller's conduct. General Buller, it will be remembered, was sent by 
 the Government to act as district magistrate in South-western Ireland. The 
 General, as the witness admitted, did intervene between landlords and tenants- 
 and try to stop evictions. " He brought pressure on the landlords within the 
 law ? " suggested Sir Charles Russell. "Yes, and sometimes outside the law," 
 retorted Mr. Lennard, not once swerving from the position he' maintained 
 throughout his entire examination — the position of a stickler for legality. 
 
 Again, Mr. Lockwood tried him by quoting the case of the Duggans — 
 tenants of Lord Kenmare. The Duggans had held their land under the 
 Kenmare family for two hundred years. In two hundred years they had 
 reclaimed it from sterile bog. In two hundred years they had expended 
 thousands of pounds upon it. They were evicted at last, and the Kenmare 
 agent admitted to Mr. Lockwood that in the two hundred years the Kenmares 
 had not spent a single farthing upon the Duggan farm lands ! Lastly, 
 Mr. Lennard, the great stickler for legality, issued a distress warrant against 
 Mrs. Curtin, whose daughter and son have appeared here as witnesses to the 
 murder of their father ; and it was issued although the family experienced great 
 difficulty in making a livelihood after Mr. Curtin's murder. 
 
 It was fifteen minutes past three o'clock before Mr. Lennard was done with. 
 At that moment the witness-box was a chaos of MSS., blue-books, and ledgers. 
 They were scattered about to right and left of Mr. Lennard. He packed up,, 
 and did it with vigour and rapidity. It looked as if there was a cab-load. 
 But the miraculous black bag held everything. In they all went — books, 
 papers, and all — rammed well down by j\Ir. Lennard's strong right hand. My 
 Lords the Commissioners, smiling, watched Mr. Lennard with much interest. 
 Glancing quickly about him, and, seeing not a rag left, Mr. Lennard, the 
 strong agent, snapped up his black bag, smiled a hard little smile of 
 satisfaction, tripped out of his box, and vanished. 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov, 23. 43 
 
 NINETEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 23. 
 
 Only two of T/ie Times witnesses were produced to-day. The examina- 
 tion of one of them lasted from half-past ten, when the court opened, till past 
 three. It was grave, business-like, important. The comic element— inevitable 
 in this great trial — came in during the last half-hour of the sitting. The 
 evidence of District-Inspector Huggins, the first witness, was taken by Sir 
 Henry James, and was confined to Castleisland district, county Kerry, during 
 five-and-a-half years, ending 1886. It was a long, monotonous, dreary list of 
 threatenings by post, moonlight visits, shootings, maimings. 
 
 At an early stage in the examination Mr. Reid protested against waste of 
 time. Not for the first occasion has Mr. Reid objected to a method of 
 inquiry likely to prove both " interminable and ruinous." All these outrages 
 are undoubted ; what Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Reid, and the others are wait- 
 ing for is the proof of the connection of these outrages with the sixty-five 
 gentlemen directly and specifically charged by The Times, The hubbub of 
 conversation which arose in court long before Sir Henry James got half-way 
 through this list of outrages showed that none were listening to him except 
 those who were professionally compelled. 
 
 Not even Captain Moonlight's lyrical efforts had for the audience any charm. 
 Specimens of the captain's compositions (in prose and verse) were read by Sir 
 Henry James. Their grammar alone should have condemned the captain to 
 the gallows. Apart from his too obvious criminality, the captain must have 
 been a humbug. Not only in his bloodthirsty sentences was he constantly in- 
 voking his Maker's and his Saviour's name, but also he was offering ^100 
 reward to any one who would give him information about people who paid 
 their rents, and ^5 reward for information about people who tore down his 
 notices. As the poet's identity was supposed to be an impenetrable secret, it 
 was not easy to see how an informer could get at him. If ever he should get 
 at him, he would probably have to wait for his money. However, according to 
 Inspector Huggins's story, as given in answer to Sir Henry James's questions, it 
 would appear that Captain Moonlight was King of Kerry. On one night his 
 gangs visited five houses, seven on another, thirteen or fifteen on a third, and so 
 on. He boycotted schools whose teachers were relatives of persons who had 
 taken evicted "farms." He, or his sympathizers, murdered people on the 
 high-road— one of these victims being Mr. Herbert, a magistrate— and the 
 police going to the scene of the murder were hooted and laughed at. 
 
 But what had the League leaders to do with all this ? In the inspector's 
 view a good deal. For example, the secretary of the Castleisland branch, a 
 man named Horan, appeared on behalf of the branch to defend in court a 
 tenant who w^as charged with having taken forcible possession of her house. 
 " But did you consider that to be wrong? " asked Sir Charles Russell, with an 
 air of surprise. Mr. Huggins did. But the tenant was only charged : 
 nothing had as yet been proved against her ; could not Horan, or the organiza- 
 tion he represented, help, with perfect propriety, the accused woman to defend 
 herself? No ; Mr. Huggins could hardly see the matter in that light, though 
 he admitted that Horan might have interfered with perfect propriety had he 
 been related to the accused ! 
 
 Another instance in which Mr. Huggins's testimony was supposed to im- 
 plicate the League was a League meeting held near the town of Castleisland, at 
 which, though Mr. E. Harrington, M.P., and Mr. Sheehan, M.P., were both 
 present, the most ferocious utterances were made from the platform by a local 
 medical man. Dr. Moriarty. This Kerry physician described himself as an 
 
44 Friday] Diary of [Nov. 23. 
 
 admirer of the Fenian Stephen, and a land-grabber as a person who should be 
 avoided as "if he had the plague." " Let the grabber go to his grave," 
 exclaimed the doctor from the platform, " unhonoured, unwept, unsung. Let 
 none except his widow attend his funeral." There was a good deal more of 
 this sort of oratoiy — wherein bombast and stupid brutality contended for the 
 mastery. All this was very shocking. But now Sir Charles Russell elicited 
 from the witness the fact that he was not sure whether Mr. Harrington was 
 present when Dr. Moriarty spoke. Furthermore, he admitted that large 
 numbers of "outrages " reported to the police turned out to be bogus outrages, 
 got up — to mention one motive — for the purpose of getting compensation 
 — or to mention another motive, for the purpose of giving the agrarian 
 movement a bad name. 
 
 Again, Mr. Huggins's list of moonlighting outrages seemed so formidable that 
 at first glance it would appear as if the whole district was in a murderous 
 mood. But, in answer to Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Huggins admitted the 
 likelihood that all the outrages were the work of one hand. Mr. Huggins also 
 stated that the majority of the " outrages " consisted of nothing more formid- 
 able than threatening letters and notices. As to the suggestion that the 
 murder of Mr. Herbert, magistrate and land agent, might be explained by 
 causes unconnected with a political organization, Mr. Huggins corroborated 
 the report that Mr. Herbert was unpopular. And he added that he heard it 
 rumoured that Mr. Herbert on one occasion suggested that the people should 
 be "skibbered" — a word which appears to mean anything from being 
 "butted" with the stock of a rifle, to being run through by its bayonet. 
 
 Like the lively witness of the day before. Inspector Huggins saw League 
 wherever crime existed. "I never heard," said he, "of any secret societies 
 existing before those years, except," he added, with stubborn emphasis, " in 
 connection with the Land and National Leagues." 
 
 Upon this Sir Charles Russell, who was cross-examining him, started up. 
 "What!" said Sir Charles, sharply, "why do you say that — why give me 
 an answer to a question I did not put to you ? Do you mean to make an 
 injurious insinuation against these two bodies?" But District-Inspector 
 Huggins, looking a little alarmed, protested that he had no such object in 
 view. 
 
 The secret societies topic, dropped for a little while, was taken up by Mr. 
 Reid, Q.C., who handled the witness with great skill — eliciting from him his 
 reasons for supposing that moonlighters and leaguers were the same persons. 
 
 Whether they were the same or not, the inspector's reasons amounted to 
 nothing more than suspicion — the worth of which he had never taken any 
 great trouble to test. He believed that moonlighters and leaguers were 
 identical, because until the League was started there were no outrages (a 
 questionable proposition) ; because he saw, at League meetings, persons whom 
 he supposed to be mixed up in outrages ; because he had been told that a 
 leagiier had warned an acquaintance against serving writs, under pain of having 
 his ears lopped off. 
 
 " Is that all ! " exclaimed Mr. Reid, raising his eyebrows ; " are these your 
 only reasons for saying that moonlighters and leaguers were the same?" 
 " Yes," was the answer ; and in muttering his monosyllable District-Inspector 
 Huggins looked somewhat ruffled and nervous. 
 
 "Well," again exclaimed Mr. Reid, "you have been eight years in Cork 
 and Kerry, and that is all you can tell us about this matter ! " Mr, Reid 
 wound up with one more question. " Beyond what you have just said, you 
 cannot connect the League with outrage?" No, he could not. It must be 
 recorded that Mr. Huggins also made the striking admission that the outrages 
 in his district (Castleisland) were more numerous during the year follozuing the 
 suppression of the Land League than in the year precedmg the suppression. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 27. 45 
 
 Inspector Huggins had been under examination since half-past ten o'clock ; 
 it was now twenty minutes past three ; and that was all that The Tiffies 
 counsel had been able to make of his evidence ! 
 
 Then came the funny man. Teahan his name was — hotel keeper and 
 cattle dealer of Tralee. Put in a dozen words, his story was that he had 
 been boycotted because of his dealings with a Corporation occupying evicted 
 lands in Kerry. According to The Times theory boycotting proceeded from 
 the League. But Mr, Teahan, The Times witness, now announced his firm 
 conviction that he had been boycotted from motives of private revenge. 
 
 " I know it Avas," said Mr. Teahan, rapping his knuckles on the desk. " A 
 few blackguards " boycotted him, and among them there was " a fellow I 
 M-ouldn't give a halfpenny a year for," and another fellow who " was a man of 
 straw, while I was a man of manes " (means). " It was all jealousy," shouted 
 Mr. Teahan, smilingly, and with more of his knuckle-rapping — "all jealousy," 
 because of his prosperous business, whereat he turned over from three to four 
 hundred pounds a week. The thought of the four hundred changed Mr. 
 Teahan's mood in a moment. " Why," he called out at the top of his voice, 
 " I'm losing a hundred pounds by standing in this box ; " and he thumped it. 
 He glanced angrily at the Q.C.'s in general and at Mr. Reid in particular. 
 Then the storm passed off, and he became communica<^ive. He tvoidd tell the 
 Q.C.'s how he made his money in South Africa. He zuojtid tell my lords how 
 he " droove " two horses tandem. He smiled, threw his head back, dropped 
 his chin on his chest, nodded, winked, placed his elbows on the desk, and 
 again smiled knowingly, while counsel read out the correspondence between 
 him [about that Corporation business] and the secretary of the League — of 
 which, by the way, Mr. Teahan himself was a member. The style and 
 demeanour of this Kerry witness may be described as good-humour inter- 
 mixed with sudden explosions of wrath. He was called to curse the League ; 
 bur, if he did not bless it, he at any rate exonerated it from blame. It was all 
 private jealousy — "if I swore at all," said he, with another nod and a wink, 
 "that's what I'd swear here." Why! bless the man, he was on his oath 
 there all the while. 
 
 TWENTIETH DAY. 
 
 November 27. 
 
 Only two witnesses — both of them members of the Royal Irish Constabulary 
 — were examined to-day. Castleisland was the district about which they were 
 questioned. . Like all the constabulary witnesses who preceded them, they 
 maintained that the Land League was the cause of Irish disturbance. To 
 support this proposition one of the two — Sergeant Gilhooly — could adduce no 
 argument stronger than the threadbare, wearisome one — that is to say, Ireland 
 was quiet up to 1879-80, the Land League came, and confusion followed ; 
 therefore the League caused the confusion. But Sir Charles Russell threw 
 discredit on his first premiss. 
 
 It was the second witness. District Inspector Davis, whose evidence caused 
 the interest, almost the excitement, of the day. His testimony was the most 
 startling yet given before the Commission. And it was as novel as it was 
 unexpected. But before dealing with Mr. Davis's evidence, let us indicate 
 briefly the main drift of Mr. Gilhooly's. Examined by Sir H. James, Mr. 
 Gilhooly described the large and rapid increments in the constabulary force 
 
46 Tuesday] Diary of [Nov. 27. 
 
 subsequently to the end of 1880, the implication being, of course, that if there 
 had been no Land League agitation, the increase would have been unnecessary. 
 As soon as the League was established in Castleisland, said the witness, there 
 came "a great change" over the district, crime became rampant, threatening 
 notices and letters became common. And among the disturbers of the peace 
 were four moonlighters who, he asserted, were leaguers. But as for the four, 
 his only reason for supposing them to be leaguers was that he had seen them 
 attend League meetings. That did not amount to much, because League 
 meetings were open to the public. The question put by Sir Charles Russell 
 in the earlier part of this witness's examination-in-chief would have been quite 
 applicable at later stages of it. The question was, " What bearing has all 
 this on the issues before the Commission?" and it was put with reference to 
 the minute details about the successive police reinforcements, details which 
 Sir Henry James drew forth with a languid persistence, as if he himself 
 were wearied with his task. This led to great waste of time, and to 
 "enormous" and unnecessary (on former occasions Sir Charles Russell called 
 it ruinous) expense. 
 
 District Inspector Davis had been in Castleisland district for about seven 
 years from the end of December, 1880. From his official position his know- 
 ledge of Kerry ought to be minute, special, and valuable. But for a long time 
 his story, given in the form of answers to Sir Henry James, was only a minute 
 inventory of agrarian offences committed, or at least reported, in Castleisland 
 during the years 1 88 1-6. Sir Henr)- read them out one by one — 
 scores of them — from the Castleisland " Outrage Book " (a police document), 
 which lay before him ; and the witness authenticated each case. It would be 
 tedious to enumerate them, or even to classify them. Enough to say that they 
 included threatening letters and notices, injury to and destruction of farm 
 produce, vindictive slaughter of farm stock, and one foul murder — the murder 
 of Mr. Herbert, landlord's agent, at a spot five miles from Castleisland, on the 
 30th of March, 1882. 
 
 Once more, Mr. Reid, Q.C., appealed, plaintively, feelingly, to the Bench 
 to stop all that wearisome detail. Sir James Hannen sympathized with Mr. 
 Reid, and the result was that from the point the narrative had now reached 
 (spring of 1883) Sir Henry James made somewhat more rapid progress, con- 
 fining himself rather to typical instances than to further enumeration of 
 individual cases. 
 
 More to the point was the District Inspector's evidence about the 
 Land League. He knew the secretary of the Castleisland branch, Tim 
 Horan. "This," said he, "I believe to be Tim Horan's handwriting," 
 as he looked at a letter handed to him by Sir Henry James. The letter, dated 
 September 30, 1 88 1, was a request for funds for the relief of men who had 
 been wounded in some act of violence, but whose identity was, said the 
 writer, known only to himself and the "members of the society." The 
 District Inspector's impression, or belief, in the authenticity of the handwriting 
 was the only proof offered by him. This date came between two dates which 
 were of great importance in Sir Henry James's estimation — namely, June 5, 
 1 88 1, when a public meeting was held at which Mr. Herbert was named as 
 having recently carried out an eviction and levelled the " evicted" house to 
 the ground ; and March 30, 1882, when, as said above, Mr. Herbert 
 was murdered. T/ie Times counsel showed that some months before his 
 murder Mr. Herbert had been summoned by Mr. Hoi-an to attend a meeting of 
 the League branch. But when the letter was read out in court it proved 
 to be perfectly respectful in language, and anything but dangerous or violent. 
 Here it is : — 
 
 Sir, — I am directed to call your attention to certain statements made against you at our 
 last meeting concerning farms held by two men. It was resolved that this meeting respect- 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 27. 47 
 
 fully requests you to attend at the next meeting of the League on Saturday next, 2nd 
 January, 1881. — Yours, Timothy Horan. 
 
 The connection which The Thnes counsel appear all along to have been 
 striving so hard to establish was this — that the speech of June, 1 88 1, incited 
 the murder of March, 1882, a space of ten months intervening. Numbers of 
 outrages speedily followed the speech of June, said Mr. Davis. He stated 
 that from the people of the district he had never received any assistance in his 
 search for the authors of crime. The people were afraid, said he. A new 
 terror had risen among them : the moonlighters were unknown before 1880. 
 Even on the very night after Mr. Herbert's death, thirteen lambs were 
 " murdered " on his property. Mr. Davis had served thirty-five years in the 
 force. He was intelligent. And, as he said himself, it was his duty as 
 police inspector to know his district — to get behind the scenes of the people's 
 life, and know more of it than other men. 
 
 The effect, therefore, was startling when, in answer to Mr. Asquith, who 
 next examined him. Inspector Davis announced that he had discovered in the 
 Land League a " secret inner circle," whose business it was to organize outrage, 
 and execute orders of the larger body. He declared that this secret society 
 carried on its evil work when the League was suppressed. On Mr. Asquith 
 inquiring from him how he had got at this information, Mr, Davis declined 
 to answer. Firmly, but respectfully, he refused to give his informant's names. 
 
 Then Mr. Reid tried him. Still he refused to mention names. " I must 
 press you for it," said Mr. Reid, quietly. ^Vhy, said Mr. Reid, raising his 
 voice, this anonymous informer, through whom the League is accused, may be 
 *' one of the greatest liars in the United Kingdom." After some consultation, 
 the President accepted, under some reservations, Mr. Reid's claim of a right to 
 know ; but Mr. Reid nevertheless refrained from putting the question, merely 
 reserving his right to do so when he thought fit. The informers — there were 
 two of them — from whom Mr. Davis had derived his alleged information were, 
 by their own account, men of the very worst type — traitors to their own friends, 
 and organizers of crime. Here is part of the cross-examination. The " he " 
 refers to the first of the two informants : — 
 
 Was he a member of the National or Land League? — He was a member of the Land 
 League. 
 
 Did he profess to have taken part in the organization of crime ? 
 
 Sir Henry James — I object. 
 
 The President— I think Mr. Reid is entitled to ask that question. I think he is entitled to 
 learn to what class the person belongs. 
 
 Mr. Reid — Did this gentleman, or individual— (laughter) — convey to you that he had taken 
 part in the " inner circle" ? — He did. 
 
 Did he convey that he had_ himself taken part in crime ? — No ; he told me he had never 
 perpetrated crime, but he admitted knowing about it. Possibly he admitted having approved 
 of crime. He admitted having organized crime. He gave me no documents. 
 
 Have 5^ou any evidence, bej^ond that of the man to whom you have referred, to prove the 
 existence of this secret circle ? — I have the evidence of another man. 
 
 A man of the same class? — Yes. 
 
 And tarred with the same brush? — (laughter) — Yes. I have no other evidence save the 
 disorganized state of the district. I have no secret or private information. 
 
 Mr. Reid— Before putting my next question, my lords, I should like to have your lordships' 
 sanction. I want to ask if these two persons are in Ireland — if thej' are accessible. 
 
 The President— I have no objection. You want, I suppose, to learn whether they are 
 available to give evidence ? 
 
 Mr. Reid — Yes, my lord. (To witness) — Are they within the United Kingdom ? — I believe 
 one is. 
 
 The other is not within reach— not accessible ?— No, One of the persons I never met until 
 1886. The statement of the first was confined to the Land League, the statement of the 
 second to the National League. 
 
 The available person — is he the person of 1882 or of 1886? — The person of 1886. 
 
 With an expression of amused contempt Mr. Reid asked Davis whether 
 *' that was all" the evidence he had to bring forward for his statement that 
 
48 Ttcesday] Diary of [Nov. 27. 
 
 the League contained a "secret centre," which was engaged in organizing 
 atrocious crimes. 
 
 We must now return to Mr. Asquith, who has hitherto taken very Httle 
 part in the work of cross-examination. To-day he examined Mr. Davis to 
 some good purpose. Mr, Davis, hke other members of the constabulary, 
 had declared that all the disturbance in his district began at the end of 
 1880, with the establishment of the local League branch. But he now 
 admitted that of the condition of this district of Kerry he knew personally 
 nothing. Mr. Asquith also elicited some extremely important facts — (from the 
 witness, that is ; in parliamentary returns they have been demonstrated ad 
 nauseani) — that the larger proportion of outrages during the years under review 
 consisted of "threatening letters," and that in some cases the people who 
 " received" them were the people who wrote them. Also that the majority 
 of these letters were not followed by violence of any sort ; and, again, that 
 the years when violent offences were declining were the years in which 
 legislation was in force for securing fair rents and remission of arrears ; and, 
 moreover, that in this same disturbed county of Kerry the Bishop, Dr. Higgins, 
 was an anti-Nationalist, who would not permit his clergy to support the League 
 (which, according to the earnest protestations of the leaguers themselves, 
 was an engine for the prevention of crime). Shortly before Mr. Asquith sat 
 down the witness said that he had traced the organization of outrages to the 
 headquarters of the League in Dublin. 
 
 Did you ever succeed in tracing any connection between the moonlighters and the Central 
 Association in Dublin ?— I saw Mr. Boyton at Castleisland, and heard him make a speech. I 
 heard what his business was. 
 
 From whom? — From my informant. 
 
 Who was he?— I cannot give his name. I came to the conclusion that Mr. Boyton was 
 organizing a body of the League, because the district became much worse after he was there. 
 
 You said that you searched Mr. Horan's house ? — Yes. Proceedings were taken against 
 hirn as the result of that search. He was convicted for keeping firearms, and fined £-^. Mr. 
 Kenny was also convicted for the same offence. 
 
 So far as you know, have either of those two gentlemen been proceeded against for any 
 offence ? — Not to my knowledge. 
 
 Mr. Horan, it will be remembered, was secretary of the Castleisland branch 
 of the League. Mr. Kenny was, or had been, its president. 
 
 Mr. Reid having done, for the time being, with his Kerry informers, 
 examined Mr. Davis further on the social condition of Kerry : and in 
 answer to these questions, Mr. Davis agreed that "private mahce and family 
 quarrels were fruitful in crime." Mr. Reid next came to the question of 
 criminal speeches. It will be remembered that The Times counsel alleged 
 that the murder of Mr. Herbert in March, 1882, was instigated, or encouraged 
 by a meeting held ten months before. And now Mr. Reid proceeded to 
 quote from the Rev. Mr. O'Riordan's speech, wherein Mr. Herbert's name 
 was mentioned. Here is a portion of it : — 
 
 We will not insult Mr. Herbert ; we will not offer him any violence or do him any Injury. 
 The man who would do so would be the greatest enemy we have. . . I will also ask you to 
 tell everybody you meet that no man must do him the slightest injurj^ insult him, or oflFer 
 him any violence, and that the man who would suggest it is the friend of Mr. Arthur Herbert 
 and the enemy of 3^our cause. . . Let us hear no more of these miserable outrages. They 
 are your shame and your disgrace. Your cause does not want these things. Come out in 
 the open daylight like men and stand together.^ 
 
 '^ Other extracts from the Rev. Mr. O'Riordan's speech were read out by Sir Henry 
 James: — ... . _ 
 
 " I have a great objection to bring any mans name under censure, public or private. I 
 will not withhold the name of a landlord here to-day. The name is Mr. William Hartley, and 
 his agent Mr. Arthur Herbert ; and I brand them here to-day as disturbers of peace and 
 order*in the land." " We are told that this landlord and his agent intend to come out here 
 and serve these people with writs and ejectment processes. Now, I am here to-day to tell 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 27. 49 
 
 The next document read was still more remarkable. An extract from a 
 speech of Mr. Davitt, it was read out in open court by Mr. Davitt himself. 
 Here are some short passages : — 
 
 In fighting your enemy with the weapons of barbarism you are unconsciously fighting his 
 battles. Injustice does not palliate the barbarous practices too frequently resorted to in this 
 country. . . . The victims of injustice are not morally or otherwise justified in resorting to 
 acts which are cruel and inhuman. The torture of dumb animals ... is, in my opinion, a 
 crime so brutally wicked and so blindly barbaric . . . that I would take pleasure in flogging 
 my own brother for it. ... I demand of you to stamp out these abominable outrages. 
 
 Mv. Davitt, addressing himself to the witness, asked if that was not a fair 
 report of what he had said ; to which Mr. Davis replied that it was. Then 
 Mr. Davitt put the following questions : — 
 
 I believe that you have stated to the Town Commissioners that I had visited the district, 
 and that I sympathized with the Curtin family ? — Yes. 
 
 If it were suggested that I went down to aggravate the boycotting of the Curtin family 
 you would not agree with it ? — Certainly not. 
 
 Have you ever prosecuted any members of the police for outrages? — No; but a case 
 occurred of an outrage in connection with which a policeman was convicted for not telling 
 the truth. 
 
 Do 3'ou remember a case where three policemen fired into a house ? — That was in the 
 Killarney district, but I heard of it. 
 
 Do you know that the Fenians are alwaj-s supposed to be opposed to outrages ? — I have 
 had no experience on the subject, and I can't say. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell next put to District Inspector Davis a question or two : — 
 
 You have spoken of the information you received as to the inner secret circle of the League. 
 Do I understand you to say that you have not followed up that information by making a 
 charge against any one ? — That is correct. 
 
 You said that jNIr. Boyton came down to Castleisland ?— Yes. He attended a meeting and 
 spoke. I have no personal knowledge that he ever came to the district before or since. I 
 however heard that he came down. 
 
 From whom ?— From the informer of 1882. I have no personal knowledge on the subject. 
 
 Mr. Davitt once more tried his skill upon the witness, asking him whether he 
 had ever known Fenians to be moonhghters. " I do not remember," was Mr. 
 Davis's answer, and, he added, "the persons who committed the outrages were re- 
 ported to me to be Land Leaguers." There was no direct testimony, only report. 
 
 Shortly after three o'clock the cross-examination of Mr. Davis was finished, 
 and Head-Constable Gilhooly, who had appeared in the witness-box in the 
 earlier part of the day, was recalled. His evidence scarcely requires detailed 
 notice. But the abbreviated substance of part of it shqws that distress prevailed 
 among the tenants, and that the League contained almost all the respectable 
 people of the district.' 
 
 him if he comes into this remote district to disturb the peace, though we will not injure a hair 
 of his head, we will make an example of him." " If Mr. Forster is just, let him raise himself 
 above the prejudices of party, and let him apply his coercion to any one who may be about to 
 excite disturbance, and we have a right to expect that this be applied to Mr. Herbert. Is he 
 to be allowed, without protesting against it, to come into this district and create disorder and 
 break up happy, though poor, homes? I say he will not." " Is Mr. Arthur Herbert to be 
 allowed to come here to break up the homes of these poor people and cast them adrift on the 
 mercies of the world? I say he will not. We will not insult him, or do him the smallest 
 injury, and the man who would offer him any insult would be the greatest enemy we have. 
 ... I ask you all to do this ; and mark, you are the public, and if Mr. Herbert comes to 
 serve writs and create disorder, we will, by every lawful means, endeavour to make him_ a 
 remarkable man in the country. I will also ask and tell every man that you will not do hini 
 the slightest injury or offer him any violence, and, if any man does so, he is an enemy to you. 
 
 ' Was it not abatement they were asking for? Was there any combination against the 
 payment of all rent?— I couldn't say. There were agrarian outrages in Castleisland from the 
 latter end of '79. I knew there had been a very bad season in '79. I knew that the 
 potato crop was a bad one, and it was upon that the people mainly depended for subsistence. 
 There was a distress fund got up to which the police themselves subscribed, but I don t 
 remember the particulars. There was a local committee for the distribution of relief in 
 Castleisland. To that committee Mr. Roche, Archdeacon O'Connor, and Father A. Murphy 
 belonged. When the League was established the respectable shopkeepers, and the farmers, 
 big and small, round the place became members. There were very few exceptions. 
 
 5 
 
50 ]Vedncsday] Diary of [Nov. 28. 
 
 The cross-examination of Mr. Gilhooly ended with a few questions about four 
 men, mentioned at the beginning of his evidence, as having been tried for an 
 attack on a police protective hut. Gilhooly had suggested that one of the four, 
 a man named Crowley, was secretary of the local branch. He now declined to 
 say whether Crowley was secretary or not. He admitted he did not know who 
 was secretary. Nor, in fact, could he tell whether any one of the four men was 
 a leaguer. 
 
 TWENTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 November 28. 
 
 Twenty-one witnesses, including a youth, who was put into the witness- 
 box by mistake, or at all events prematurely, were examined to-day. The 
 youth, who looked shy and frightened, was disposed of in almost less than a 
 minute, for it turned out that the crime — a murder — on which he was called to 
 give evidence, and which was committed four or five months ago, was still su5 
 jiidice. So young Pat Horan was dismissed from the box rather brusquely, as 
 if the responsibility for his untimely presence there rested upon him. And to 
 Pat succeeded Mr. Tom Galvin, a farmer, who had been shot in the legs for 
 paying his rent. That was The Times counsel's view of the transaction. But 
 Tom surprised them by telling Sir Charles Russell, quite bluntly, that, 
 after all, he did not think thxt was the reason. Nor was he the only Times 
 witness who, in the course of the day, introduced confusion among his own 
 side. Tom evidently suspected that a family dispute of his was at the 
 bottom of it. He had been managing his widowed sister-in-law's farm, and it 
 would appear that his management was interpreted by some of his relatives as 
 *' land-grabbing." It also appeared, in Sir Henry James's opinion, that Tom's 
 story in the box contradicted his depositions elsewhere. Anyhow, it was no 
 easy matter to extract definite statements from Tom. And before they were 
 done with him, Tom himself manifested clear indications of impatience with 
 his questioners. " ]\Iay I go away?" said he, seizing the rim of his felt 
 hat and picking up his blackthorn cudgel. Tom, with an expression of 
 effusive contentment, made the remarkable announcement that he had received 
 three hundred pounds compensation for a fusillade that left him hardly any the 
 worse. 
 
 The examination of the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth witnesses was occupied 
 with two separate instances of the occupation of land from w'hich others had 
 been evicted. The first of these witnesses was a man named Hourigan, who, 
 having been pulled out of his house at night, was dragged "all through the 
 yard," and made to swear upon "something like a book" not to offend again. 
 His evidence led to no definite conclusion. 
 
 But the second case, that of Mr. Brown, who lives near Castleisland, whose 
 house had been fired into at night, brought on an interesting discussion about 
 League money. Yes, he had received a summons from the League about this 
 grabbing business — a summons signed by the secretar}^ Mr. Tim Horan, whose 
 name, by the way, frequently occui's in Sir Richard ^Vebster's elaborate history 
 of county Kerry. He had received another summons from another ofiicial 
 leaguer, Father Murphy. Mr. Brown ignored Tim's summons, but he obeyed 
 the priest's. But at this moment a sudden cloud of forgetfulness passed over 
 ;Mr. Brown's mind. " Bedad " — to quote his frequent expletive — he had for- 
 gotten the contents of the League correspondence. After a good deal of 
 wrestling with a defective memory, Mr. Brown announced that Father !^Iurphy 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 28. 51 
 
 amdertook to pay him fifteen pounds if he would restore the farm to Mrs. 
 Horan. But was that League money? "Not at all," replied Brown, with 
 -energy. How then did the Rev. Leaguer propose to get the money ? By 
 "*' collection " — Mr. Brown explained — collection among the people. So that 
 it would appear the whole transaction was open and above-board, and more of 
 ■a charitable than a socio-political character. " Nothing was said about Land 
 League money," Mr. Brown repeated. 
 
 Then the story took a fresh turn. The priest did not pay the ;i^i5, and Mr. 
 Brown sued him in court, and the judge decided against Mr. Brown. One 
 •explanation of Father Murphy's refusal to pay was that the payment had been 
 promised on certain conditions which Mr. Brown did not fulfil. That the 
 League, as an organization, had had nothing to do with the Brown-Horan 
 -quarrel appeared to be further proved by the testimony of Serjeant O'Brien, 
 who said that, though he had been present at the negotiations, he had not 
 heard the League's name mentioned. Here, then, was another Times 
 witness, from whom The Tiims counsel extracted little or nothing. At 
 -last, the President growing impatient at the waste of time, Mr. Brown was 
 .promptly sent about his business. But not before he gave some replies to 
 Mr. Davitt. 
 
 The theory of the so-called prosecution, it may be repeated, is that outrages 
 were the offspring of the Land and National Leagues. The reply of the defence 
 is, in effect, " You don't know your Irish history; outrages are the offspring 
 •of a bad social condition which existed long before the Leagues were 
 •established, and which the Leagues have been trying to amehorate." Hence 
 Mr. Davitt's questions to Farmer Brown. In answer to these questions, Mr. 
 Brown stated that he well remembered the famine years of '48-50 ; that there 
 were many evictions in that period of terrible distress — evictions, because the 
 landlords were taking advantage of their opportunity to amalgamate small 
 farms — and that, as matter of history, evictions had always in Kerry been 
 followed by disturbance and crime. 
 
 The seventh, eighth, and ninth witnesses were not very important. But the 
 succeeding four gave interesting evidence. The first in this group of four was 
 •the widow of another farmer, of the name of Brown, who had been foully 
 murdered in 1882. Mrs. Johanna Brown, her name was. Mrs. Brown's 
 ■■costume was of a kind never before, perhaps, seen in the Royal Courts of 
 Justice. She was enveloped from head to foot in a wide blue-black cloak, the 
 large hood of which was drawn well over her face. It might almost have been 
 ■taken for one of those black, bagg}% balloon-like garments in which, in the 
 East, Mahommedan women wrap themselves when they visit the bazaar, or ride 
 •out on donkey-back. Nevertheless, Mrs. Johanna Brown's cloak is Western 
 and South-Western Irish. The few peasant women who any of these mornings 
 ■may be seen wandering slowly about the corridors of the Law Courts, as if 
 ■they were going to some dead friend's wake, remind one of scenes at the 
 .funerals of the Lonergans, Shinnicks, Caseys, and other victims of police 
 fusillades. 
 
 The police witnesses in the Brown case made a direct, definite charge against 
 >one of the most important of the Parnellite members. They say that Mr. John 
 O'Connor cheered the murderers of Mrs. Brown's husband. The murderers, 
 ■or supposed murderers — at all events, they were hanged for the murder — were 
 two men named Boff and Barrett. Poor Mrs. Brown saw them run away 
 immediately after the commission of the deed. The "long gentleman," the 
 Attorney-General called Mr. O'Connor, bearing in mind the repeated descrip- 
 tion of him by one of the witnesses, as being very tall. Sir Richard Webster 
 was doubtless unaware that Mr. O'Connor is known among his friends by the 
 -sobriquet of" Long John ; " the coincidence between the epithets must have 
 .been accidental. 
 
52 ]]^cdncsday] Diary of [Nov. 28. 
 
 District-Inspector W. H. Rice was the first witness summoned after Mrs. 
 Brown. He described how he was escorting from Tralee to Cork a 
 number of prisoners, among whom were those two very men — Boff and 
 Barrett. They were on their way to Cork prison. At a street corner in Cork 
 he saw INIr. John O'Connor, surrounded by and addressing a large crowd. 
 •' He appeared to be their leader." " I heard him," said Mr. Rice, shouting 
 out "Down with British law ; three cheers for Boff and Barrett !" "Down 
 with the Cork jurors ! " &c., all which expressions the mob cheered. Mr, Rice, 
 in re.ply to the Attorney-General, stated that he went up to Mr. O'Connor and 
 expostulated with him. A police-sergeant, who was examined immediately 
 after Mr. Rice, gave his evidence to the same general effect — also adding that 
 Mr. O'Connor and his friends, seated on a car, continued their demonstrations 
 all the way to the prison gates. Mr. Davitt, however, put a few questions to 
 Mr. Rice, with the object of ascertaining whether he was aware that, whether 
 rightly or wrongly, a very general impression prevailed that Boff and Barrett 
 were innocent. INIr. Rice admitted that he was aware of the existence of such 
 an impression ; and also that he had heard that the condemned left behind 
 them written documents asserting their innocence. The implication in 
 Mr. Davitt's question, therefore, was that the excitement among the Cork 
 crowd might be accounted for by the prevalence of the above-named, 
 impression. 
 
 Then came the day's amusement. It was given — at T/ie Times' expense — 
 by Maurice Kennedy, a farmer, of Inniskean, in county Kerry (still county 
 Kerry). Times counsel, Parnellite counsel laboured three hours at Mr. 
 Maurice Kennedy without gettirg anything out of him, without proving 
 hardly anything about him, except that his mind was a tabula rasa, or 
 that he would not though he could, or that he was a prevaricator. His gocd- 
 humour was imperturbable. He was communicative to a degree ; and if the 
 lawyers had only allowed him, he wculd have gone on telling incoherent 
 tales about his family affairs. One clear statement, and only one, was got out 
 of him — that on a certain day he bought hay at a boycotted auction, and that 
 shortly after that his horse's ear was cut off. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy joined the League, but he knew not how much entrance 
 money he paid — whether five pounds or a shilling ; he could not tell whether 
 he had worked for an employer without being asked ; he had called his fellow 
 mortals "roosters," but had no conception of what the word meant. To all' 
 such questions as — Did you say this or that ? Did you do this cr that ? Did you 
 see this or that ? Did you understand this or that ? this perplexing witness's 
 invariable answer was, "Well, sir, I may have," or "Well, sir, perhaps 
 not ; " anything but an out-and-out reply. And he always answered with a 
 confiding, sympathetic air — as of a man who would do anything to oblige you \ 
 a man who warmly appreciated your thirst for knowledge. It may here be 
 explained that "rooster" means, in the dialect of disturbed Ireland, a man 
 w^ho is "a landlord's turnspit." ^Vhat The Times counsel wanted to know 
 from him was whether the local branch of the League kept a list of "roosters," 
 that is, of persons whom the League had resolved to boycott. As this list 
 was alleged to be hung up in the League office, Mr. Kennedy, who was a 
 member, ought to have seen it. • But The Times counsel could get nothing out 
 of him. Here is a short specimen of the examination : — 
 
 I don't know whether I saw a list of "roosters" displaj'ed on the wall. Before I made 
 the statement to Mr. Shannon I told him I perhaps should not understand the questions he 
 put to me, and I very likely did not understand them. (Laughter.) Ma^-te I told seme 
 lies. I told Mr. Shannon that a list of hoj-cotted people was kept at the League. Bowkr 
 and other persons were called "roosters." 
 
 Were you knocked down and beaten? — And if I was I don't remember, and I shouldn t 
 blame the League for it. 
 
 Were you beaten ? — I don't think I understand the word at all. (Laughter.) 
 
Wednesday] the Pavnell Commission. [Nov. 28. 53 
 
 Since making the statement to Mr. Shannon have you spoken to any one about the evidence 
 
 ■ you would give here ? — No, sir ; never a word. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell — I think I ought to state at once, my lords, that, so far as we know, 
 there is no foundation for the suggestion that the witness has made a statement to any one 
 instructed by us. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson— There is just one more question I should like to ask. 
 
 The President — Do you expect to extract anything more from him? 
 
 Mr. Atkinson (to the witness)— Did you go to any office near the Strand the other day? — I 
 
 • don't know any office, sir ; but I was on the strand picking seaweed the other day. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell — And how far is the strand from your house ? — About a mile, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kennedy's assurance that he had picked seaweed on the strand was 
 I received with roars of laughter. 
 
 The reader will at once see the significance of one of the above questions 
 put to the witness : " Since making your statement to Mr. Shannon have you 
 : spoken to any one about the evidence you would give here ? " The Times 
 
 ■ counsel were making nothing of their own witness. Mr. Shannon is one of 
 the assistants to ^Ir. Soames, The Times solicitor. Kennedy was again 
 pressed for an answer to the question — whether he had told Mr. Shannon who 
 
 ■ the men were whose names were put down on the League "rooster" list. 
 - All that could be learned from him was that the names mentioned " might be " 
 
 • on the list — an emphasis on the might. 
 
 After the luncheon hour, his own counsel — that is to say, The Times — 
 srenewed their attack on Mr. Kennedy. 
 
 To bring Mr. Kennedy to book, Mr. Shannon and the shorthand writer 
 
 were examined about their interview with Mr. Kennedy in Mr. Soames's office. 
 JSIr. Shannon swore that he had taken down the evidence which Kennedy 
 
 gave him ; and that all that he knew about him previously was the story of 
 -the horse's ear. In effect Mr. Shannon rejected the possible theory that he 
 
 might have suggested to the witness subjects for evidence, upon which subjects 
 . the witness was now professing entire ignorance. Next Mr. Shannon's 
 . assistant stated what had happened. His statement, in reply to the x\ttorney- 
 
 • General, is given in a footnote. ^ 
 
 According to the assistant's statement, Kennedy knew all about the 
 * • roosters," and a great deal more. Yet on his examination in court he pro- 
 fessed almost blank ignorance. He was not even sure whether he had been 
 fined, or if he was fined, why. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Kennedy having disappeared, Mr. John Kennedy was placed 
 ifi the witness-box. But the mind of Mr. Kennedy number two was about as 
 
 ^complete a blank as that of Mr. Kennedy number one. Next came a black- 
 smith named Cooirahan — a timid man, but more precise than his predecessor. 
 He stated that he had been dismissed from his membership of the League, 
 
 . because he worked for a boycotted tenant. The next witness, a carter named 
 
 ^ I was present when I\Ir. Shannon questioned Kennedy, and I took down the statement. 
 This is it (reading from his notes): " I recollect bidding for the hay at the auction. I had 
 
 . not seen any notices up to that time. I had been on good terms with my neighbours. After 
 
 ; the auction the ear of my horse was cut off. ... I attended meetings of the League before 
 the outrage and one afterwards. I used to cart pigs from the fair to Tralee, but I lost this 
 work. . . . The committee of the League brought a charge against me for speaking to 
 Bowler. I worked for Justin ^McCarthy. They said the charge against him was his working 
 for a. boycotted man. The men who worked for McCarthy were called 'roosters.' The term 
 
 : signifies ' a turnspit for landlords.' About three months after the outrage I was fined is. 6d. 
 for breaking a regulation of the League. After a meeting of the League I was told that 
 Bowler was to be boycotted. I heard that a list was kept of persons who were to be boy- 
 
 . cotted. Every 'rooster' was to be boycotted. The League boycotted them. CuUinan, 
 Shea, Justin McCarthy's son-in-law Kennedy, J. O'Donnell, T. O'Donnell, and Davis were 
 on the list. The League devoted most of its time to boycotting roosters. On going to a 
 meeting of the League 1 saw a list of roosters on the wall. After being fined I did not work 
 for anybody on the list. I dare not. I do work for some of them now. It is since the sup- 
 pression of the League that I have worked for them." 
 
54 Thursday] Diary of . [Nov. 29.. 
 
 Gr'ffin, told how he had been beaten, and even robbed, by a gang of men on:' 
 the highway because he served the same "rooster," but subsequently his 
 evidtnce became confused, for he admitted, rather awkwardly, that " there had': 
 been an affair between us (his assailants and himself) over a dhrop of drink." 
 And " Begor, sir," he added subsequently, " but this dispute had nothing todo- 
 with IMcCarthy," for whom the " roosters " worked. Then came a police officer, 
 who stated that the boycotting of IMcCarthy took place several months after ■ 
 the foundation of the local branch of the National League in September, 
 1885. 
 
 TWENTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 November 29. 
 
 \Ye are still in Kerry. A Kerry farmer named Jeremiah Sullivan was the ■ 
 first witness called this morning. His story was of the ordinary ty]^e with 
 which this Kerry investigation has made the public familiar. The purport of 
 it was that he had paid his rent immediately after his fellow-tenants had 
 petitioned their landlord for reduction. The usual results followed — first,, 
 moonlighters' shots at night, from which, however, he received no harm ; and the 
 morning after the shots, " Ror\' o' the Hills' notice," found stuck over his- 
 door — " Rory " swearing by "his God" that the man would be shot who 
 paid his rent against " the will of the people." Sullivan's evidence established' 
 nothing except the fact of the crime. 
 
 Replying to Mr. Davitt, he stated frankly that he knew nothing as to it? 
 authorship. A question put to him by Mr. Reid elicited the mteresting fact 
 that Sullivan, though he did pay, gave the landlord less than the other tenants 
 were ready to concede. In that case, asked Mr. Reid, why did they persecute 
 you? Like so many of these Kerry witnesses, Sullivan betrayed almost com-- 
 plete ignorance of matters beyond his own patch of soil. Until he saw the 
 moonlighters' notice he had not even heard of " Roiy o' the Hills." Sullivan's 
 case was so unimportant that the next witness, Constable Murphy, called to 
 testify to the raid on Sullivan's house, was dismissed with one or two questions,. 
 The next witness had more information to give, but, like Sullivan, he brought 
 no charge against the Land League — nor against any one in particular. His 
 evidence was one of a thousand proofs and illustrations of a fact of which the 
 public are sufficiently aware — that Keriy has for a long time been disturbed. 
 
 Pat jNlurphy, another witness, was a man of lucky escapes. His neigh- - 
 hours accused him of having grabbed a widow's farm. Accordingly, some 
 persons unknown dragged him out of bed at night, and made him swear on his 
 knees that he would give the widow back her land. Having got this promise, 
 " Rory's " men might have let him alone. But they fired at him and missed.. 
 However, they snipped off part of his ear. Murphy is the second Irish 
 farmer who has presented himself, crop-eared, before the Parnell Commission. 
 On the next occasion his escape was still narrower. He was returning from 
 Tralee to his home, when — this was in July, 1882 — a man jumped out of a; 
 wood, fired at him from the wayside, and missed, but the shot hit one of the 
 three "boys" who were wnth ]\Iurphy in the car. After this secorid escape, 
 he was boycotted for years, and some of his cattle and sheep were slaughtered 
 by "Ror}-'s" emissaries. 
 
 Mr. Davitt cross-examined the witness. His questions were intended to- 
 find out whether the crime might be explained by causes wholly unconnected' 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 29. 5 
 
 with the League— say, by private disputes and jealousies, and social con- 
 ditions that had long existed. The widow's farm was the only one she had, 
 the witness admitted. As fur himself, he had a second farm, upon which he 
 could fall back ; and he was quite aware— this also in answer to a question- 
 that for the widow it was a choice between her home and the workhouse. Did 
 this prove Sullivan heartless and self-seeking? But Mr. Sullivan's next obser- 
 vation showed that he himself was as helpless in the hands of a stronger 
 power as the widow was in his, for he stated that the landlord had compelled 
 him to take the widow's farm, under the threat that if he refused he would 
 have to abandon the one he already held. Mr. Davitt's next question was 
 suggestive. Had the widow grown-up children? Yes. And Mr. Sullivan 
 admitted that they might naturally have found means of taking vengeance for 
 their mother's sufferings. However, the crime was not brought home to the 
 widow's sons any more than it was to the National League. So that ^lurphy's 
 story did not appear to throw much light on the investigation. 
 
 Nor did the next case, a much more atrocious one than either of the 
 preceding. It was that of a man named John Macauliffe, who apparently 
 for no reason than that he had assisted his brother, a process-server, was moon- 
 lighted, and shot in the left arm, which subsequently had to be amputated. 
 The empty sleeve of Macauliffe's rough frieze coat was tucked into his waist- 
 coat. At the same moonlight visit, Macauliffe's brother was hurt, and his 
 sister's head cut open. To show how these crimes were regarded by such 
 prominent -leaguers as the proprietor, editor, and chief contributor of TAe 
 Kerry Sentinel, the principal newspaper in Kerry, Mr. Lockwood contented 
 himself with reading out from its columns several passages strongly denouncing 
 the outrage. 
 
 And now the Court entered upon a somewhat different line of investigation ; 
 and one of the most important of The Times witnesses stepped into the box. 
 This was District-Inspector Crane, an Englishman, and an Oxford man (by 
 the way, only one of many men with a University education who are nowadays 
 to be found' in the Royal Irish Constabulary). Except when the comic 
 element was present, the evidence of the Kerry men was confused, lacking 
 in precision, and, though doubtless useful, wearisomely difficult to get at. 
 But here was a witness who wasted no time — whose answers were prompt, 
 pointed, unmistakable. His evidence extended over three districts of Kerry, 
 and covered a period of seven or eight years. But the plan upon which Sir 
 Richard AYebster arranged his questions made the ready apprehension of the 
 connection and general bearing of Mr. Crane's answers a very simple matter. 
 Mr. Crane was required to describe the lawless condition of Kerry as he found 
 it, to indicate what, in his belief was the true explanation of the lawlessness, 
 and then to state the grounds for his belief. 
 
 To show what the social condition was, Mr. Crane, following the Attorney- 
 General's questions, took his three districts one after the other— Dingle district, 
 Listowel, and Killarney. When Mr. Crane first went to Dingle— this was m 
 1879— he fo^nd the locality quiet. Even in 1880, when evictions took place, 
 it had not yet been found necessary to have strong bodies of constabulary at 
 them. The chief landlord in the Dingle district had always been,^ said Mr. 
 Crane, very popular. "I never heard a word said against him." But the 
 Land League founded its first branch there in the beginning of 1 88 1, and 
 then— according to Mr. Crane— the demeanour and behaviour of the people 
 changed suddenly and completely ; and for the first time tenants under eject- 
 ment notice began to fortify their houses. To put Mr. Crane's testimony into 
 a nutshell, it amounted to this— that upon the first local branch of the Land 
 League there followed the first barricade and the first siege. He pro- 
 ceeded to describe how, simultaneously with this new agitation, the police had 
 to be increased at different stations ; how " Land League hunts " (through the 
 
56 Thursday] Diary of [Nov, 29. 
 
 game and other preserves of unpopular landlords) came into fashion ; how 
 landlords' officials of many years standing — e.,:^., men like Bailiff Moriarty, 
 who had been forty years at his calling — were warned by symbolic coffins 
 affixed to their doors ; how Land Leaguers in particular and the community in 
 general refrained from giving any assistance, any information in his endeavours 
 to discover the authors of outrages ; how crimes fell off when a new Coercion 
 Act was put in force ; how they broke out afresh in 1885, when the Act was 
 allowed to lapse ; and how he observed that wherever a Land League organi- 
 zation existed there also the moonlighters were sure to be. 
 
 The Attorney-General made Mr, Crane repeat this last important statement. 
 Mr. Crane once or twice expressed the same thing in another way — he had 
 never known any instance of a secret society existing by itself. The secret 
 society and the open society — the League — co-existed. Why, he was asked 
 by the Attorney-General, did the people refuse to give you any information ? 
 Was it because of terrorism? "Terrorism," was the answer, " not sympathy 
 with crime." " I am certain of it." These last five words Mr. Crane uttered 
 with an emphatic gesture. Two other statements completed Mr. Crane's 
 general indictment against the League. One, that the leaguers and the 
 moonlighters not only co-existed, but also that they w^ere interconnected ; and 
 the other, that crimes followed breaches of the League rules. In his cross- 
 examination by Mr. Lockwood, District-Inspector Crane admitted that he was 
 not in a position to institute a comparison between the Kerry districts as they 
 were before and subsequently to 1879, inasmuch as his knowledge of them did 
 not begin before that year. Again, when challenged by Mr. Lockwood to 
 specify individual League meetings (with names of speakers), the holding of 
 which he could directly connect w^th the subsequent commission of crime, Mr. 
 Crane was unable to name them. He could only say, generally, that League 
 meetings — that is, official meetings and not merely open and public meetings — 
 were regularly held ; and that, although he himself was riot present at them, 
 he knew that the outrages followed. Having failed to get from Mr. Crane 
 any direct proof that meeting and outrage had any relation to one another 
 save the relation of sequence, Mr. Lockwood read long extracts from T/ie Kerry 
 Sentinel articles, the waiter of which was understood to be Mr. Edward 
 Harrington himself, and in which outrages were denounced as "hellish work," 
 and their perpetrators as men possessed of a "devilish instinct." Mr. Edward 
 Harrington, sitting on the solicitors' bench, supplied Mr. Lockwood with files 
 of the Sentinel. " Cowardly, criminal, sinful, and abominable," were the 
 adjectives with which the ultra-Xationalist Kerr}^ paper, the Sentinel, wound 
 up one of its attacks upon the moonlighters, whom yix. Crane regarded as 
 leaguers under another name, and for whose misdeeds he held the League 
 responsible. 
 
 Mr. Crane's most startling statement was made in reply to Mr. Asquith, 
 whose cross-examination of him lasted for more than half an hour. 
 
 Air. Asquith — Do j'ou suggest that the branches of the National League and the moon- 
 lighters are in co-operation ? — I do. I say that the majoritj' of the moonhghters are Xational 
 Leaguers, but not that the majorit}" of National Leaguers are moonlighters. The resolutions 
 of the League were invariably carried out bj' the moonlighters. 
 
 The witness was then pressed as to prosecutions of moonlighters, but could not say positively 
 that any of the men were members of the League. In one case he said the police met a party 
 of moonlighters. 
 
 Mr. Asquith — Were they raiding for arms ? — I don't know. The police met them. They 
 were going to several farmers' houses. 
 
 How do you know that? — From private information. 
 
 Who gave 5-ou the information? — I won't tell j'ou. 
 
 Air. Asquith (to the President)— I suppose, my lord, that answer comes under j-our recent 
 decision. 
 
 The President — Yes. 
 
 The witness — Aly information was that this party were going round to the farmers to compel 
 them to join the League. 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 29. 57 
 
 Mr. Asquith — You won't give me the name of the informant, so I don't want to know what 
 his information was. 
 
 Witness (continuing)— From my experience I make no quahfication or reserve m saymg 
 that outrages followed the proceedings of League meetings, as reported in the papers. I 
 have seen these things over and over again, although, of course, I cannot tax my memory 
 with the particular reports and the exact crimes which occurred after them. 
 
 The next witness was a district inspector, Mr. W. H. Wright. Like Mr. 
 Crane, he held that until the League appeared in it, his part of Ireland had 
 been peaceful and content ; that in the years before 1879-80, the poHce 
 were never at a loss to get information leading to the detection of offenders. 
 Speaking of two to three years ago, he said that Listowel was in an extremely 
 disturbed state at the very time that the League was exceptionally influential 
 there. Then Mr. Wright gave a little descriptive sketch of contemporary 
 Irish Hfe, which must be familiar to every one who visits the country ; he de- 
 scribed how a popular leader, on horseback, would watch the poUce-barracks for 
 the first signs of a march-out to an eviction ; how the horseman would gallop 
 off with the news, and warn the threatened occupier and his friends. Mr. 
 Wright clearly thought that scouting of this description (which is done openly 
 in Ireland at eviction times) was a serious offence. He stated that one of the 
 scouts whom he arrested was a Mr. Murphy, Secretary to the Listowel branch 
 of the Land League ; but the particular act for which he arrested him was 
 "blowing a horn" (another kind of danger-signal, common in Ireland). "I 
 nave that horn yet," exclaimed Mr. Wright, loudly. 
 
 Mr. Murphy was taken aback by the burst of laughter with which this 
 interesting piece of information was received. Mr. Wright next gave a long 
 list of agrarian offences that had taken place in his district. Did you investi- 
 gate the causes ? asked Sir Richard Webster. Yes, and he had found — so 
 ' he said — that the causes resolved themselves into breaches of League rules 
 about payment of rent, about occupation of "evicted" farms, and so forth. 
 He also stated that the League prohibited farmers from substituting mowing 
 machines for manual labour. He summed up his evidence in this statement — 
 that the League was the only organization which he knew to have preached 
 against land-grabbing ; and that he believed the National League to be con- 
 nected with the moonlighters' secret society. This testimony, a repetition 
 of Mr. Crane's, brought out a sharp, quick question from Mr. Lockwood — 
 " What are your grounds for that statement?" "I know the moonlighters 
 carried out the League's behests," repeated Mr. Wright. "That is only your 
 inference," retorted Mr. Lockwood. 
 
 For about twenty minutes Mr. Wright was closely and severely pressed by 
 ]Mr. Lockwood, to give definite proofs of any one single instance of identity 
 between the League and the Moonlighting Society. 
 
 I understand you to suggest that, in your opinion, the moonlighters who were engaged in 
 the outrages were carrying out the behests of the Land League. Now, what grounds have 
 you for that opinion? — Well, in the cases of these evicted farms 
 
 What evicted farms ? — Lm speaking of evicted farms generally. 
 
 But if you speak of them generally you will only give me a general opinion formed by 
 3'ourself. What I want to learn is the groundwork on which your opinion rests. Give me 
 the names and dates of outrages justifying your opinion ?— Well, I can't do that. I can't refer 
 to any particular cases ; but the general question remains the same. 
 
 And so you cannot give me any better reasons for the opinion j'ou have formed ? You have 
 made, as you must be aware, a very grave accusation, and I want to know if you can sub- 
 stantiate it by giving me the names and dates of particular outrages? — Well, here now 
 (referring to his book), here is a case of a man who had taken an evicted farm, and we all 
 know that persons who have had anything to do with evicted farms have been denounced over 
 and over again. The man's hay was burnt on this evicted farm. Now, how was it the hay 
 was not burnt on the adjoining farm? 
 
 To Mr. Wright Mr, Biggar put a shrewd question in reference to the subject 
 • of moM'ing machines. One of the witness's accusations against the League 
 
58 Friday] Diary of [Nov, 30.. 
 
 was that it prohibited the use of them. But, said Mr. Biggar, is it not the- 
 fact that the members of the League are farmers — the very persons for whont. 
 machine-mowing would be cheaper than any other form of labour ? Would 
 the farmers of the League pass a regulation against themselves? 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington and INIr. Davitt also put a few questions to Mr. Wright, 
 the former challenging him to give specific instances. 
 
 Can you point to anj- specific instance in which a resolution was adopted by a branch of 
 the National League as distinctly apart from meetings of the tenants themselves in which 
 non-payment of rents was advised apart from the question of reduction ? — I am not aware of 
 any at the present time. 
 
 Can you point to any single instance where you heard, by information, that the National' 
 League directed moonlighting or any other kind of outrage ? — Oh, no, sir. _ 
 
 Not even from private information— in Castleisland or any other districts — in which the 
 National League directed outrages ? — Oh, no. 
 
 Your information has been drawn altogether from the fact that the outrages had to do with 
 agrarian questions, and that the National League had to do with agrarian questions ? — Well, . 
 they followed on the regular lines of the speeches and resolutions. 
 
 It is, then, merety an inference, not founded on information? — It is an nference of my own. 
 founded on observation. 
 
 Not founded upon information? — No. 
 
 Finally, Mr. Davitt got from him the admission that he was unacquainted withi 
 the rules of the League, that he had never read them, nor taken any steps to • 
 inform himself on the subject. This concluded the examination of Mr. Wright. 
 Of four witnesses who followed Mr. Wright, the most notable was Eugene 
 Sheehy, a dark-complexioned man (of a Spanish type not uncommon in 
 Kerry). He confessed that "as far as I know the League and myself have . 
 always been good friends;" so that Eugene Sheehy did not blame the 
 League for his horse's loss of an ear. The poor horse had its ear cut off, because 
 its owner bought boycotted hay. Eugene returned the hay. "Got your- 
 money back?" asked Sir Henry James, sympathetically. "Oh! I never 
 paid for the hay," replied Mr. Eugene Sheehy, smiling, and — when the- 
 laughter broke out — blushing. 
 
 TWENTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 Now, then, said the Attorney-General, as he called his first witness of the- 
 day, a witness who was to describe happy Arcadia. This was Mr. Hussey, a 
 well-known landlord and estate agent in county Kerry. His examination in 
 chief, lasting thirty-five minutes, Avas practically a eulog)- of Kerr)' and its 
 people before the Land League appeared and spoiled (according to the witness's 
 ideas of cause and effect) their peace. Up to the year 'So " as peaceable as 
 any part of the world " was Mr. Hussey's regretful description of Kerry. 
 Until then, said he, the people bore distress meekly. When crimes were 
 committed we had no difficulty in getting evidence about them ; we could evict 
 W'ithout difficulty ; and no one because he paid rent was punished by his ■ 
 neighbours. If he had to put his finger upon any date demarcating Kerry the 
 happy from Keny the miserable, he would select the loth of October, 1880, the 
 date of the first meeting of the Land League at Castleisland, at which meeting 
 "my name was mentioned," and at which Mr. Biggar w-as, he said, the speaker 
 in chief. Then the troubles of !^Ir. Hussey and his fellow-agents and land- 
 lords began ; and so very quickly that, "in a day or two " after Islx. Biggar's 
 speech, ]Mr. Hussey himself received information which induced him to place : 
 
Friday'] the Parnell Ccnunission. [Nov. 30. 59- 
 
 himself under police protection. Mr. Hnssey put his complaint in logicaB 
 shape — or rather the Attorney-General led the way for him. For instance^ 
 his argument that the League must have been the cause of the new lawlessness, 
 and discontent, because in those localities where no League branch existed 
 his relations with the tenantry remained on their old and pleasant footing, 
 was a good illustration of what the philosophers call the method of agreement 
 and difference. Never before, Mr. Hussey testified, at the wind-up of his 
 examination in chief, had tenants come to him to pay their rents in secret — 
 fearing, as he said they told him, "lest they should be shot." Never, untif 
 1880, had he heard of moonlighters, nor of "land-grabbing" (the very name 
 was new to him). For forty years Mr. Hussey had been, according to his. 
 own account, a popular man in the county; but in 1884 a dynamite mine 
 was exploded close to his house, blowing its walls down, and endangering the- 
 lives of its fifteen inmates, mostly women and children. 
 
 The cross-examination of Mr. Hussey was conducted by Sir Charles Russell,, 
 Mr. Reid, Q.C., Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Biggar. The HveHest part of it was a. 
 little word combat between the witness and Mr. Biggar. The most important,, 
 as well as the most elaborate and exhaustive, was Sir Charles Russell's. The 
 whole of this cross-examination was a most interesting and valuable chapter 
 in Irish history, in the form of Question and answer. And Sir Charles Russell 
 was at his best — or near it. "And so then," Mr. Hussey, "you adhere to all 
 you have said " about the state of Kerry before the rise of the League? Yes, 
 Mr. Hussey adhered to all he said about its peacefulness and contentment. 
 
 " Very well ; now let us look at the parliamentary record for Kerry in' 
 the year 1879." And then Sir Charles Russell read out, slowly, deliberately,. 
 a long list of Kerry outrages in that year — incendiary fires, threatening letters, 
 and cattle maiming. 
 
 From these State records Sir Charles Russell also quoted passages which 
 showed that evictions and unauthorized re-entries into " evicted " homes were 
 not unknown in Kerry before Mr. Hussey's black year, 1880. "What say 
 you to that ? " asked Sir Charles Russell, pausing in his counter-description of 
 Arcadian Kerry. Mr. Hussey also paused. At last he observed that he 
 regarded the threatening notices, the incendiarisms, and such like outrages, 
 enumerated by Sir Charles, as nothing in comparison with the outrages of" 
 subsequent years. Then came Sir Charles's characteristic "Very well, very 
 well," as if he were quite satisfied with his answer. These preliminary 
 questions by Sir Charles Russell were meant to show that before the League 
 ever existed there were in Keny causes of social discontent. His next set of 
 questions was meant to discredit a common suggestion that, for sinister pur-- 
 poses, the League hindered the operation of the Land Acts. Did not Mr. 
 Hussey know that if the Nationalist leaders discouraged wholesale resoit to 
 the Courts when the Act was passed, their object was to await the result of 
 test cases? He did not. Nor was Mr. Hussey very explicit as to the extent 
 which " the load of arrears hanging round their necks "might have disqualified" 
 tenants from applying for "judicial rents." And he admitted that in many- 
 instances the Land Commissioners, in fixing the new rents, deprived tenants 
 of their ancient and valuable right to turbar}' (free turf-fuel). 
 
 If before the League appeared the Kerry people were as prosperous and 
 content as Mr. Hussey said (Sir Charles Russell, by the way, had already and 
 promptly admitted their great patience), how could Mr. Hussey explain the 
 following figures, his cross-examiner asked : In 1876 Ireland produced crops, 
 of the value of thirty-six millions. In 1879 the value fell to twenty-two 
 millions. "Startling, is it not?" Sir Charles Russell remarked, looking up 
 from his blue-book and addressing himself to the witness. In 1876, he con- 
 tinued, the potato crop was valued at twelve millions, and cnly at three- 
 millions in 1879. Lastly, the eviction figures were quoted, showing that. 
 
6o Friday] Diary of [Nov, 30. 
 
 in 1879 there were 3,893 evictions, or more than double the number in 
 1876. 
 
 "Was there anything which tenants dreaded more than eviction ? " " No." 
 " And they would make any sacrifice to escape eviction?" "Yes." But at 
 this point Mr. Hussey threw in a qualification to this eftect — that eviction was 
 not so much dreaded now as before 1880. " Why? " " They do not dislike 
 emigration so much ; " at which assurance Sir Charles Russell smiled. Mr. 
 Hussey next admitted that even in 1879 he " thought " the tenants of Lord 
 Kenmare (one of the landlords whose agent he was) petitioned for rent abate- 
 ment, and moreover that quite apart from the work which Lord Kenmare 
 was providing for them in his improvement schemes, they deserved to get 
 it. " And you know that these people hate to see their homes demolished 
 and burnt." "Yes," was Mr. Hussey's businesslike answer, "for then they 
 have no chance of getting back to them." 
 
 It appeared that in the summer of 1 880, before any Land League branch 
 existed in Kerry, Mr. Hussey had demolished houses in order to prevent the 
 tenants returning to them. "Was not that cruel?" Mr. Reid asked him in 
 his quiet way. Cruel or not, Mr. Hussey defended the act on the ground of 
 its " necessity," because, said Mr. Hussey, there was not then as there is now 
 a law which punished tenants for re-taking possession of the homes from which 
 they had been evicted. 
 
 All through this examination Mr. Hussey accounted for his own unpopularity 
 in Kerry, and for the existence of outrages there, by the interference of the 
 Land League. But, Mr. Reid asked him, did he not think that, quite apart 
 from the Land League, such acts as the demolition of labourers' houses were 
 enough to make him unpopular ? Mr. Hussey did not think they were. Mr. 
 Reid gazed at him for a moment or two, and sat down. 
 
 Mr, JNIichael Davitt and Mr. Biggar next put a few questions to Mr. 
 Hussey — between whom and the member for Cavan there followed a brief 
 and lively, but not angry "scene." ]Mr. Hussey, probably thinking that he 
 "had" Mr. Biggar for once in a way, made the best of his opportunity, 
 and both gentlemen, as they went ahead with their work, grew rather red 
 in the face, nodded at each other, and even wagged their forefingers. 
 
 Mr. Hussey's examination being now done with, the Attorney-General 
 announced that, owing to the non-arrival of police witnesses from Ireland, he 
 would be obliged to postpone the conclusion of his case for county Kerry. 
 
 Meanwhile, he would pass on to county Cork. And Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty, 
 a merchant and farmer, of a small place called Millstreet, was called to give 
 his evidence. 
 
 The point in Mr. Hegarty's long and involved story — in the development of 
 which he was constantly asking to be allowed to " explain " — was that all 
 the worries and heavy business losses (brought on by boycotting), which he 
 had endured for seven long years, were solely attributable to his refusal to 
 become a member of the League. The boycott cost him two thousand a year, 
 he said, but he had held out in spite of it, and cared for boycotters no longer. 
 This expensive boycott appeared to have made but little impression upon Mr. 
 Hegarty's spirits. Mr. Hegarty is stout, ruddy, robust, erect : he looks 
 at least sixteen years younger than his age — which, to the surprise of all 
 present, he said was fifty-six. 
 
 The League was first established in his locality in the autumn of 1880. 
 After that a League official called upon him — presumably to invite Mr. Hegarty 
 to join the new organization. Mr. Hegarty refused; as he repeatedly declared, 
 in the course of his cross-examination, he would have nothing to do with it. 
 Well, shortly after the above-named visit, said Mr. Hegarty, notices were 
 posted all over the place, inviting people to cease dealing with him. The 
 sanguinary rubbish contained in these notices was in the style of the 
 
Friday] the Parnell Connnission. [Nov. 30. 61 
 
 mysterious " Rory o' the Hills," otherwise known as Captain Moonlight. In 
 one notice, Hegarty was called a "leper." Another notice was dated from 
 "Assassination Hall." And yet again, Mr. Hegarty was informed that 
 "Captain Moonlight, Governor- General of the district for the time being, with 
 the advice and consent of his privy councillors," would use " cold steel." Next, 
 Mr. Hegarty observed that two men whom he had seen entering the League 
 rooms, were keeping watch over his shop. Soon after the legal pvmishment 
 of these two men Mr. Hegarty's dairy was broken into and its contents de- 
 stroyed. At Divine service people even went to the extremity of boycotting 
 Mr. Hegarty's brother-in-law — they would not sit on the same side of the 
 chapel with him. In 1880 Hegarty was shot at, but he escaped ; in 1887 ^^ 
 was shot at and hit on the shoulder. The League only, was the cause 
 of all these persecutions. In all the League there was, it would appear, only 
 one man for whom Mr. Hegarty entertained any respect, and that man was 
 Mr. Davitt. A letter which he wrote in 1880 to Mr. Davitt, and in which he 
 asked the Father of the Land League to interfere on his behalf, w^as read 
 out in court. An admirably-written letter it was ; and, withal, a great 
 compliment to Mr. Davitt himself, for whose character the writer expressed 
 straightforwardly, and without a trace of flatteiy, the warmest admiration. 
 The letter is by far too long for reproduction here. 
 
 Mr. Reid, cross-examining the witness, looked surprised at his assurance that 
 for the simple offence of refvising to join the League he was " twice shot at," 
 and boycotted " all those years." Could there possibly have been any other 
 cause or causes ? To throw light upon that question was the purpose of the 
 cross-examination, which occupied the remainder of the day's sitting, and in 
 which Mr. Reid took the principal part, and after him Mr. Arthur O'Connor, 
 M.P., Mr. Michael Davitt, and Mr. Biggar. 
 
 Mr. Reid— Did you ever have anything to do with evictions? — Yes. Up to 18 80 I had 
 not ; but since 1880 I have been connected with the management of some properties in the 
 neighbourhood. 
 
 Oh. I see. Did j'ou not assist at the eviction of Lyons? — Yes. It was in February', 1886. 
 
 At the eviction of Riordan ? — Yes. That was in January, 1887. 
 
 When did you first act as agent or bailiff or sub-agent or bailiff, or become in any way 
 connected with a landlord ?— I think it was in April, 1880. 
 
 Were not all evictions in Ireland a cause of dissatisfaction and discontent ? — I am sorry to 
 say they were to a large extent — that is, the}- have been made so. 
 
 Have you not, since its commencement, shown great hostilitj^ to the Land League?— -Yes; I 
 have alwaj's defended myself as much as I could. 
 
 Is it no't the case that the National League embraces a large portion of the population in 
 the district in which you live ? — Apparently it does. 
 
 You belong to the Landlords' Defence Union, do you not ? — TheDefence Union, yes. 
 
 That is a body in the habit of bringing down emergency men — rightly or wrongly, I don't 
 want to discuss it — into the district ?—The3^ have a large number of men in their employment. 
 
 Generally' called emergency men ? — They are called all manner of names. 
 
 They are, I suppose, rather an unpopular body among the National or Land Leaguers ?— 
 As a matter of course every one who Is opposed to the Land League must be unpopular in 
 the neighbourhood. 
 
 They cultivate evicted farms, do they not? — Yes. 
 
 You have been active in their interest for three or four years ?— I was one of the executive. 
 
 And therefore you took an active part in assisting these men ?— Not actively. I am sorry 
 to say my time would not permit me to. I have exerted myself to the best I could to get 
 people on the evicted farms protected. Of course I have been obliged to do that. 
 
 Ever since the Land League commenced — ever since 1880 — is it true that you have set 
 yourself in favour of persons who were boycotted, and who had taken evicted farms?— I have 
 assisted them from the commencement. 
 
 After this there followed an interesting cross-examination by Mr. Davitt, 
 who elicited from Mr. Hegarty some important admissions regarding the 
 jealousies of his fellow-tradesmen, and the real nature of the share which the 
 local leaguers had in boycotting him. 
 
JD2 Tuesday] Diary of Dec. 4. 
 
 Mr. Davitt— You have said with some emphasis that you told me you would never join the 
 League ? — Yes. 
 
 Did I ever ask you to join, ever coerce you to join ?— No, 
 
 With regard to the able letter of which you ha\'e spoken, and which you have addressed 
 to me, didit appear in any newspaper before it reached me?— No. It was sent to TAe Daily 
 Nczc'S on the 28th of December, iSSo. 
 
 Was that letter written to me in consequence of anything I had said ? Had you read 
 anything I had written or spoken about that time about any people being coerced to join the 
 League? — I don't remember that I had, but I must have entertained a very high opinion of 
 you at the time or I should not have written to you as I did. 
 
 I remember receiving j'our letter, and I thought I had replied to it. Did you get a reply? 
 —No. 
 
 Did you hear that the local branch of the League had been reprimanded by me for their 
 conduct towards you? — No, never. Of course your explanation now is very satisfactory. 
 
 In your letter you speak of the power of the League being used to "gratify spleen and 
 private malice." Then you thought that trade jealousy might have had something to do with 
 'the treatment to which you were subjected ?— Yes, I was strongly of that opinion. 
 
 I think you have said that the chairman of the local branch opposed some resolution that 
 "Avas proposed against you ? — Yes. 
 
 Then officially the Land League could not have been unanimously in favour of the treat- 
 ment yoix received ?— I suppose not. 
 
 In Mr. Biggar's cross-examination of Mr. Hegarty there was one noteworthy 
 point. Mr. Hegarty had put at ;^2,ooo a year the income of which the boy- 
 cotters had deprived him. Mr. Biggar is fond of challenging witnesses with 
 the question, " Will you swear, will you swear ? " and now he invited — rather 
 aggressively — ]\Ir. Hegarty to swear at what figure he had put his earnings, in 
 liis income-tax return. He meant, of course, Mr. Hegarty's income up to the 
 year 1879. Bat to the inquisitorial member for Cavan Mr. Hegarty would 
 ■not " swear " whether he had paid income-tax on as much as five hundred. 
 
 TWENTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 December 4. 
 
 Thirteen witnesses were examined to-day. Twelve of them were witnesses 
 to the seven years' boycott of Mr. Hegarty. Of the twelve, four were 
 constabulary men, and one a priest — the first of his order who has appeared 
 before the Commission. Most of them were themselves boycotted, or moon- 
 lighted, because, as they said, they had dealings with Hegarty. One of 
 them, named Cornelius Gallagher, described how he swore on his knees not 
 to work for ^Iy. Hegarty. When he broke his promise his fellow-villagers 
 "whistled " at him. The memory of all that hostile "whistling" seemed to 
 haunt Cornelius in the box. Cornelius was dismissed from his box — almost 
 hurried off — no one thinking it worth while to cross-examine him. As he 
 -dived into the crowd, with his chin on his chest, Cornelius seemed greatly 
 relieved. To him followed Jeremiah O'Connor — a stout, prosperous farmer — 
 seeming not the least depressed by the nature of his official calling, which was 
 that of relieving officer. Jeremiah was waited upon by Captain Moonlight and 
 his ruffians with the usual formalities. An easy man was Jeremiah O'Connor. 
 He refused to get out of bed to receive the rascals. So their bullets came 
 whistling through his door — doing no harm. Mr. Jeremiah O'Connor's ideas 
 on the succession of the hours are quasi-poetic. When did the captain call ? 
 At night? Not at night, but "in the afternoon of the night." Mary Fitz- 
 gerald told how, because she and her family worked for Mr. Hegarty, the 
 moonlighters tried to cut off her hair. But Miss Mary's mother defeated their 
 attempts upon her daughter's locks, but received a wound on her forehead from 
 •one of her cowardly assailants. Old ]Mrs. Fitzgerald herself appeared in the 
 •box, an hour or two after her daughter. A venerable, whitehaired, good- 
 
'Tuesday] the Parncll Commission. [Dec. 4. 63 
 
 looking, perfectly composed old lady she was. The vast hood of her black 
 •cloak almost covered her face when she entered the box. The usher tenderly 
 --assisted her to push her hood back a little, so that her aged, interesting 
 features became visible. The other witnesses' stories are not worth mentioning. 
 The outrages were not disputed. What Sir Charles Russell wanted his 
 opponents to do, was to trace them to the League. 
 
 But Mr. Thomas Cahill, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, tried to prove the 
 'Connection. 
 
 jNIr. Cahill swore that he arrested a man Dan Connell, who had been paid 
 "twelve pounds by the Land League for moonlighting. From whom did Mr. 
 -Cahill learn that ? From Connell himself. But, said Mr. Cahill, Connell did 
 not tell me the name of the person or persons who paid him. So that, after 
 all, Mr. Cahill's evidence was inconclusive. 
 
 The evidence of the remaining constabulary witnesses being as indecisive 
 as Mr. Cahill's, we pass on to that of the priest — Canon Griffin, of Killarney. 
 In so far as Canon Griffin is an anti-Nationalist, he is unlike the great 
 -majority of his fellow-priests in Ireland. 
 
 Canon Griffin is a short, thick-set, quick, intelligent, good-humoured gentle- 
 Tiian of about sixty-three, apparently — for he was still a student in the famine 
 years 1848-9. Canon Griffin is not exactly a typical Irish priest, either in 
 appearance or in speech and accent. 
 
 To quote his own pugnacious expression, he has fought the League " from 
 the start." But smilingly, and frankly, and with a pit-pat of his chubby fingers 
 on the ledge of his box, he admitted that he was in the minority. " Thousands 
 -of them," his fellow-priests, thought differently from Canon Griffin — " thou- 
 .sands of them," and his reverence tossed his neat, grey head back, with an 
 ;air of good-natured indifference, as who should say there was no accounting 
 ■for people's tastes or convictions. Canon Griffin declared that from 1872, 
 -xmtil the appearance of the League in ]\Iillstreet District, the people were 
 •quiet, industrious, and religious. He dwelt upon this point of religious 
 behaviour frequently during his cross-examination. The Canon was the 
 first witness who, besides making the League responsible for the overthrow 
 of happy Arcadia, and the coming of the rule of lawlessness and outrage, 
 made it answerable for religious decay. On this matter cheery, happy Canon 
 Griffin was quite positive. Here we give a portion of Mr. Reid's cross- 
 ■examination. 
 
 Are there a great many good i.nd exemplary priests in Ireland, all over Ireland, who have 
 Tjeen in sympathy with the League ? — Thousands. 
 
 And who, no doubt, like yourself, have denounced outrage and crime? — Possibly. 
 
 You would not doubt that they did ?— I have heard that they did. 
 
 I think I understood you that spleen and personal malignity had more to do with the 
 -action of the League than anything relating to the question of the land? — As far as_ my 
 -parish was concerned. Once it was started, persons connected with the League turned it to 
 that purpose. 
 
 Wasn't there a good deal of distress at the time? — There was a good deal of distress, but it 
 was stopped by the kindly aid of the different societies for relief. 
 
 I am speaking of the condition of things before the relief you have spoken of was afforded. 
 Is it not the case that the potato crop failed ? — It did. The distress round Millstreet was 
 -certainly very great. 
 
 The rents about Millstreet — were they largely reduced by the Land Commissioners 
 when they came round? — They were reduced both by the Land Commissioners and the 
 landlords. 
 
 You considered that reductions were necessary ? — Absolutely necessary. I consider that 
 previous to the agitation a very large portion of the land about Millstreet was entirely 
 over-rented. I was surprised when I consulted the people that they did not complain about 
 their rents. 
 
 The upshot, then, of Canon Griffin's evidence was that, League or no 
 Xeague, the people had only too much cause for discontent. 
 
64 Tuesday] • Diary of [Dec. 4^ 
 
 Moreover, Canon Griffin declined, in his cross-examination by Mr. Lock- 
 wood, to swear that he did not in 1878-9 denounce from the altar an agrarian 
 agitation alleged to have prevailed in those years. " Did you do it? " he was 
 asked. " I don't know ; I can hardly remember," was his answer. Yet one 
 of the Canon's main statements was that the Land League introduced agrarian 
 agitation. 
 
 Nor did the Canon show to much greater advantage under his cross- 
 examination by Mr. Davitt. Mr. Griffin had already declared his belief — 
 smilingly, and with his air of happy, unalterable confidence— that the men 
 who set the League a-going were people who merely wished to push them- 
 selves to the front, and make a name for themselves. Whereupon Mr. Davitt 
 put this pertinent question — " Does not that apply not only to laymen, but 
 also to the bishops and to the priests?" It will be remembered that the 
 Canon had admitted that "thousands" of Irish priests sympathized with the 
 leaguers. "You are aware, I suppose," Mr. Davitt continued, "that the 
 Archbishop of your own archdiocese took part in the League ! " " He joined 
 it afterwards," the Canon replied. "I don't know that he took part in 
 starting it." ^ 
 
 At the conclusion of Canon Griffin's examination the Court adjourned. But 
 in the early part of the sitting appeared the most important witness of the day. 
 This was Thomas O'Connor — by his own account betrayer of his fellow Land 
 Leaguers, of his fellow National Leaguers, ex-moonlighter, and ex-member of 
 the " Inner Circle," which two other leading witnesses before him in this trial 
 have declared to be the secret machinery by which the criminal resolutions of 
 the "open" League, the Constitutional League, the League known to the 
 public, were carried into effect. But the examination of this interesting 
 witness came between the testimony of the third witness and that of the fifth 
 in the Hegarty case. For the sake of consecutive order we have taken all 
 the Hegarty witnesses first, and reserved the informer's story to the last, 
 though it was told much earlier in the day. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor is a tall, physically weak young man, with round 
 shoulders, chest rather hollow, high cheek-bones (with a hectic colour about 
 them), smallish, palish, oblique eyes, receding- brow, and head rather full in 
 the back part. O'Connor joined the Castleisland branch of the League in 
 1880. And now he described at great length and minutely how the League 
 did its work. First, said he, the tenants used to meet and discuss what 
 reduction they would demand from their landlord. Having agreed, they 
 would make their demands in a body. But some went " on their own hook," 
 whereupon the League committee would meet to discuss what to do with them. 
 Every week, said the Informer, the leaguers met to denounce as " vile 
 things," as persons " unfit to walk or creep on the ground," those who "went 
 behind the backs of others " — that is, those who went to the landlords on 
 "their own hook." He was not an official himself, but he knew Tim Horan, 
 the secretary of the branch ; Patrick Kenny, the president, and others. 
 
 Here the Attorney-General, who was examining him, paused a little. " Did 
 you ever hear of an ' Inner Circle ' ? " asked Sir Richard Webster. " I did," 
 was the reply. " AVere you invited to join it?" "Yes." "Did you?" 
 Here O'Connor hesitated ; he looked a little shy and sheepish ; he moved 
 about uneasily. " I did," he said at last ; " I did, in a way — some time in 
 December, '80." Then he became bolder, readier, and more self-possessed. 
 
 ^ Canon Griffin was what his opponents call a landlord's priest. His relations with Lord 
 Kenmare are explained in the following cross-examination b^- Mr. Biggar : — 
 
 From your bringing up have ^'ou not been associated with Lord Kenmare — have you not 
 relatives in the employment of Lord Kenmare? — My brother was his phj-sician, and when I 
 was at Killarney I was his chaplain. Some of my relations are tenants of his. I would be 
 very glad to be connected with Lord Kenmare in any way, because he was the best landlords 
 in the south of Ireland.! 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 4. 65 
 
 He said that the " Inner Circle " men went by the name of " the Boys," and 
 that the two " Boys " who first sounded him, told him it would be a fine thing 
 for him to become a soldier of Mr. ParnelFs, and get pay for doing little. 
 " Twiss and Connor," said the witness, were the two " Boys " who introduced 
 him to the Inner Circle ; and when he was introduced, Twiss said, " Here's a 
 fellow who is all right; we want a fellow in Hegarty's district." All the 
 while, Tim Horan, secretary of the League, was present, and on the assurance 
 of Twiss and his confederate, Horan replied, " All right." Such was the first 
 part of the witness's story. 
 
 Then, the Attorney-General gently leading him on, the informer described 
 the nature of his duties as a member of the "Inner Circle." He took 
 part in midnight expeditions, on one occasion with thirty " Boys," who 
 were armed with guns and revolvers, and whose business it was to reinstate an 
 evicted tenant. For this first service he had, he said, six shillings from the 
 secretary of the local branch. At another time he was one of a party of fifteen 
 " Boys," also armed and commissioned to warn a landlord's tenants against 
 paying rents above Griffith's valuation. If these people, said the informer, 
 did not open their doors at once, we burst them open. O'Connor declared 
 that he had taken part in ten or twelve midnight expeditions of this kind — 
 there were many such expeditions, he added, of which no notice ever appeared 
 in the papers. 
 
 The third part of the story touched on local electioneering for local purposes . 
 He said he heard Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., declare that he would sooner lose 
 ;z^200 than that Mr. Richard Burke, a "landlord's strapper and Hckplate," 
 should be returned in place of a League candidate, at an election to a local 
 Board of Guardians. The informer went on to say that Mr. Harrington 
 personally ordered him and his comrades to canvass for the votes, but 
 **not to kill" anybody, "not to hurt" anybody, but only "to frighten" 
 voters, and not to drink — " lest we should do something foolish." And Mr, 
 Harrington, continued the witness, told us if the League candidates were 
 elected we might name our own price. To cut a very long story short, the 
 League candidate did get in, but "when we reminded Mr. Harrington of his 
 promise, he told us he had no money, and to go away, and that he was 
 ashamed of us." But, said the witness, a few days after that a man met us 
 and gave us seven pounds, and cautioned us not to trouble JNIr. Harrington any 
 more on the subject. The rest of Thomas O'Connor's startling story was 
 largely occupied with details about his visit to America. He declared it was 
 his behef that nobody could be a " Boy " unless he first was a leaguer. He 
 stated that he received his orders from the " Captain," who was instructed by 
 the League Committee. 
 
 The above story, told with much detail, produced a great effect. Here, 
 at last, after the Commission had been sitting five weeks, was a definite accu- 
 sation against one of the incriminated sixty-five. The informer's story was 
 precise and circumstantial. It accused the Secretary of the National League, 
 one of the leaders of the Parnellite party, by name, and it gave place and 
 date. But the witness had been "sprung upon" the Court. Sir Charles 
 Russell had had no intimation that this informer would be produced. _ Nor 
 had the accused Member of Parliament, Mr. Harrington. Under the circum- 
 stances, Sir Charles Russell asked if his cross-examination of O'Connor might 
 be postponed. Mr. Reid and jNIr. Lockwood joined in the request, — which was 
 granted, after Sir Charles Russell put a few questions, from the answers to 
 which it appeared that O'Connor had long since been in secret_ communication 
 with the police, and in correspondence with the landlord association known as 
 *'the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union." 
 
66 Wednesday] Diary of [Dec. 5. 
 
 TWENTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 December 5. 
 
 A UNIQUE story of juvenile depravity was the principal, and most interesting, 
 event in to-day's proceedings. But before this story was told, Jeremiah Hegarty 
 and his boycott had to be disposed of. In this last and concluding part of the 
 Hegarty evidence, Dr. Tanner, ?kI.P., was one of the most conspicuous persons 
 named. Two Irish constables named T^Ioroney and Hobbins went into the 
 witness-box to quote some specimens of Dr. Tanner's oratory. The doctor 
 denounced Mr. Hegarty as a "low, creeping reptile." "An infamous 
 being," added the doctor — immediately correcting himself by saying that Mr. 
 Jeremiah Hegarty did not deserve to be called a "being," unless it was 
 *' the lowest of creeping things — a louse." 
 
 "You picked out the plums," Sir Charles Russell remarked, when he cross- 
 examined Mr. Moroney. "Yes," the sergeant replied, with just a touch of 
 simplicity. Then Hobbins followed Moroney, with more illustrations of Dr. 
 Tanner's picturesque manner ; for this time, poor Jeremiah Hegarty figured 
 as a "parasite of infamy," likewise as "a louse that fed on the rotten carrion 
 of the landlords." How were the doctor's speeches at Millstreet taken down? 
 Why, in long hand, and after the speeches were over. Neither of the two 
 constabulary witnesses was a shorthand writer, and the first of the two ad- 
 mitted that his report of Dr. Tanner's speech was his first experiment of the 
 kind. 
 
 Constable Hobbins having been dismissed, Mr. Atkinson proceeded to read 
 out, in detail, a long list of threatening notices, directed at Mr. Jeremiah 
 Hegarty. One notice threatened with powder and shot any who would 
 buy from Mr. Hegarty. Another described Mr. Hegarty as a "pauper." 
 Imagine calling a man a " pauper," who, while he twirls his gold watch-chain 
 in the witness-box of Probate Court No. I, tells Mr. Biggar and the lawyers 
 that he cares nothing for, and is prepared to fight another seven years, the 
 boycotters who have sliced off two thousand annually from his business profits! 
 As Mr. Atkinson went on with his reading, the judges showed some signs of 
 impatience. The President, in an appealing, kindly tone, asked Mr. Atkinson 
 if it was necessary to go through "all that " ? Mr. Atkinson took the hint : 
 the remaining papers were handed in without being read ; and Mr. Jeremiah 
 Hegarty at last disappeared from the scene — to the relief of judges, lawyers, 
 and public. 
 
 The story of the Cork County witness named Williams is interesting 
 merely as an illustration of the inferential manner in which outrage 
 was attributed to local branches of the League. He was shot by moon- 
 lighters. Why ? Because, said he, I took an evicted farm. By whom ? By 
 the local branch of the League. Why did he think it was the League ? Be- 
 cause, he said, the branch secretary warned him some time before of the con- 
 sequences. But when Sir Charles Russell cross-examined him, Williams 
 admitted that the secretary spoke to him in a friendly manner. In that case, 
 suggested Sir Charles, was it not possible that the secretary, knowing 
 the popular feeling against land-grabbing, did not mean to threaten you, but 
 only to warn you against possible danger ? 
 
 Another witness, Cornelius Regan, of Charleville, county Cork, admitted 
 that the local branch denounced a moonlighting outrage of which he 
 had been the victim. 
 
 The Attorney-General now " sprang upon " his opponents a boy-informer, 
 an awkward youth, with small, restless eyes, who looked confused and 
 frightened as he reluctantly entered the witness-box. This boy-informer came 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Coumiission. \Dec: ^, 67 
 
 from Mayo. As soon as he began the tale of his adventures it became clear 
 J:hat he was well acquainted with the history of his corner of the county. 
 Kiltimagh was the name of the place where he lived, and he told their 
 lordships how he saw local leaguers, officials of the branch, follow a 
 man about the shops and warn the townsfolk that the man was boycotted. 
 James Walsh — that was the boy's name — described how committee-men of the 
 branch were appointed to "look after" boycotted people; how he himself 
 diad written and posted up thi-eatening notices issued by the branch committee ; 
 and how not long ago the branch warned people who did not join the Plan of 
 • "Campaign. No wonder that Master James Walsh was so ready with his details. 
 ¥ov Master Walsh was " secretary " of the Kiltimagh branch of the National 
 League. He afterwards explained that he shared with a "joint" his load of 
 official cares and responsibilities. Still even to be only a joint secretary of the 
 -great national organization did seem a rare distinction for a youth of his years. 
 As he stood there in his box, the spectators watched him with amused 
 •curiosity. His cheeks and chin smooth as a cherub's, young Master Walsh 
 might easily pass for a man just tottering on the verge of fifteen — or six- 
 teen at the most. " Speak up, my boy," Sir Charles Russell would often call 
 -out in the course of " my boy's " examination by Sir Richard Webster. 
 *' What's your age, my boy? " said Sir Charles, in the same fatherly manner, 
 when, rising up, and shaking his brown pocket-handkerchief, he prepared to 
 try conclusions with Master Walsh. " Nineteen ! " 
 
 Then came the revelations. Mr. Walsh informed Sir Charles Russell that 
 he was "appointed secretaiy in December, 1887," and that he "gave up" the 
 office the month after. It was not the office that retired from Mr. Walsh, but 
 Mr. Walsh who retired from the office. Why? Mr. Walsh's answer was 
 .-somewhat to the effect that it was not worth his while to keep the post. 
 "Very well," exclaimed Sir Charles, soothingly, " very well." He paused. 
 He looked up. 
 
 "Did the League ever make any charge against you?'' — (It was now the ex-secretary's 
 turn to pause.) '' I don't remember." said he, thoughtfully. — '" No charge about pilfering 
 -funds ? " — " I believe there was." — " How much was it ? " — "Ten shillings.'' — " Is it true that 
 you took it?" — "It is true, sir." — "Did you take some money belonging to an athletic 
 club ?"—" Yes." 
 
 Were you agent to a plate-glass insurance company ? — Yes. 
 
 Did you insure your mother's windows ? — Yes. 
 
 Did j^ou make out that your mother's windows were broken, and that they were made 
 of plate-glass ? — Yes. 
 
 And did you make a claim upon the company? — I did, sir. 
 
 Was your claim found to be fraudulent, and were you dismissed from your agency ? — Yes. 
 
 And was your claim fraudulent ? — It was. 
 
 Were you afterwards appointed agent for a life assurance company? — I was. 
 
 What company ? — The Gresham. 
 
 Did you represent that a Mr. D. Smythe, the editor of The Western People, wanted to get 
 his life insured for ^^500 ? — I did. 
 
 If that were true you would have been entitled to get a commission upon the premium ? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Was it true? — It was not true. 
 
 Mr. Smythe knew nothing about the matter at all ? — He did not. 
 
 " Very well," Sir Charles Russell exclaimed, accenting the " very," 
 as he resumed his seat. Mr. Walsh's demeanour, as he thus divulged 
 ■some of the chief episodes in his versatile career, was noteworthy. Mr. Walsh 
 Ijave his answers in a low voice, certainly ; but also with a matter-of-fact, half 
 indifferent air, as if the embezzler in question were not a person to whom Mr. 
 Walsh bore intimate and essential relation, but a person in whom Mr. Walsh 
 felt only a remote interest. It was pretty much as if Mr. Walsh were all 
 the while speaking of himself not as " I," but as "he " — apostrophizing himself 
 in the third person. 
 
68 Wednesday] Diary of [Dec. 5, 
 
 Mr. Walsh, having made a clean breast of his history, proceeded to 
 make some disclosures of the methods by which the case for the prosecution 
 was got up. He made them in reply to questions by Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Was any threat made to you to prosecute you if you did not give evidence ? — Yes. 
 
 Who by ■? — The District Inspector. He said he did not know what would happen about the 
 Insurance Company. 
 
 You took that as a threat?— Yes. 
 
 Do you know whether your mother was visited before this bj' a policeman ? — I do not 
 know, but she would have told me had she been. 
 
 Does your mother place any confidence in you? — She does. The Inspector asked me to. 
 tell him what I knew about the League. 
 
 Did he mention names to you ? — I don't think he did. The policeman O'Connor 
 accompanied me from Kilkiesa to the boat. I had £s given to me in Dublin, and I saw Mr. 
 George Bolton in Mr. Soames's office. 
 
 Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, young Walsh said, in reference 
 to the message a constable had given him to call upon the deputy inspector 
 of police, that he did not know whether deputy inspectors were in the habit 
 of looking up witnesses for T/ie Times, but that at all events they had looked 
 him up. 
 
 After young Walsh came an interesting old man, Jeremiah Buckley by- 
 name. But it was difficult to get anything out of Mr. Buckley. Mr. Buckley- 
 was deaf. Nodding good-naturedly at Mr. Graham, to whom fell the duty of 
 examining him, he remarked that if Mr. Graham expected to get information, 
 one of the two must approach the other. Whereupon Mr. Graham clambered 
 out of his bench up to the witness-box. Mr. Graham rested his right elbow on 
 the ledge ; Mr. Buckley both his elbows — clasping his hands, and smiling into 
 Mr. Graham's eyes — as who should say, Now, then, shout away. Mr. Graham 
 did shout, into Mr. Buckley's left ear. "Do you hear me?" "I live in 
 Cark"(Cork). Mr. Graham's complexion is naturally ruddy. But it grew 
 still ruddier under the stress of Mr. Graham's vocal exertions. While Mr. 
 Graham shouted, Mr. Buckley communicated his replies softly. The substance 
 of his story was that the moonlighters cut off part of his right ear because he 
 paid his rent. They cropped it wdth a pair of scissors. 
 
 Having given this information, Mr. Buckley turned round his left ear 
 for Mr. Graham's next question. "What sort of a scissors was it? "Mr. 
 Graham shouted into the left ear, at the top of his voice. ' ' I don't think," 
 responded Mr. Buckley with a smile and a nod, "that they were good 
 scissors." After this Mr. Graham climbed back into his bench, and Sir 
 Charles Russell's turn came. Mr. Buckley came up to Sir Charles. After a 
 while, the two gentlemen made good progress — Mr. Buckley frankly admitting 
 thr.t, though he himself had been satisfied with a rent reduction of 3s. in the 
 pound, he did not consider that his poor neighbours could have got on without 
 a more liberal allowance. 
 
 A fair type was Mr. Buckley, of the good-natured Irish peasant who does 
 his best to put up with the hardships of life as he finds them. "I've only 
 seven of a family," he declared. "Only seven!" "You have no other 
 means of livelihood, except your farm? " Sir Charles called out loudly, with his 
 mouth close to INIr. Buckley's left ear. "The divil a bit." "^\^lat's your 
 children's food ? " " Potatoes and male " (meal). Then Sir Charles, pausing 
 as if he were taking breath for another eftbrt, applied himself to the left ear. 
 "I suppose you have a joint of roast ever)' day?" " What'sh that?" 
 returned Mr. Buckley, in a loud whisper. But the question was, what had 
 the ear-cropping of Mr. Jeremiah Buckley to do with the league branch ? 
 And all that Mr. Buckley would say was that he had never suggested that his 
 midnight visitors were leaguers. Nor, he added, had he ever been boycotted. 
 Of course Sir Charles Russell's questions about the children's pot.itoes, &c., 
 were put with a purpose. They were designed to show that the prevalent state 
 
Thu7'sday] the Parnell Coininission, [Dec. 6. 69 
 
 -of poverty in the district where Mr. Buckley lived was in itself sufficient — 
 without any political organization such as the League — to stir up the tenantry 
 into acts of violence against persons who went "behind their backs" to pay 
 the landlord a rent they considered exorbitant. The Attorney-General, 
 on the other hand, endeavoured to counteract the effect of Mr. Buckley's ad- 
 missions about potatoes by asking Mr. Buckley whether he had saved any 
 money. "No," replied Mr. Buckley, this time pretty sharply, "I don't 
 have half enough." 
 
 TWENTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 December 6. 
 
 On the reassembling of the Court to-day the President, Sir James Hannen, 
 announced that Patrick Molloy had been brought to London, and would 
 — if counsel on both sides accepted the suggestion — be placed in the witness- 
 box at once. The suggestion was promptly agreed to by the Attorney-General, 
 and for the other side by Mr. Lockwood. Patrick Molloy has for some time 
 been exciting curiosity. He has been described as a Times " dark horse " — as 
 one who could throw strong light on past relations between the leaguers and 
 the invincibles. On the other hand, it has been reported in Dublin that Molloy 
 amused one of T/ie Times agents with imaginary tales, which he would disavow 
 in the witness-box. Anyhow, Molloy was served last week, in Dublin, with a 
 subpoena ; and the Commissioners' order for his arrest was issued in consequence 
 of his refusal to obey it. 
 
 ^Vhere is Molloy ? the President asked, bending over his desk. Then, 
 through a doorway in the screen beneath the Commissioners' bench, there 
 emerged two detectives, leading between them a young man, who carried 
 a carpet bag and an overcoat, just as if he had arrived from, or was about 
 to start upon, a journey. He was good-looking, and he seemed intelliirent. 
 But in addressing the President his manners were, to say the least, lacking 
 in deference. The following conversation took place between the President 
 and Patrick Molloy : — 
 
 What is your name ? — Patrick Molloy, sir. 
 
 We have been informed that you were served with a subpoena. Is that true ? — Yes. 
 
 Why did not you attend ? — Because the amount of money I got was not sufiScient to bring 
 me here. 
 
 How much did you get ? — Four pounds with the subpoena. 
 
 You admit that you received £^, — that was amply sufficient ? 
 
 It was not, under the circumstancas. 
 
 The President — We are the best judges of that, and we are of opinion that £if was enough. 
 
 Verj- good. 
 
 Then you ought to have attended, and not having attended, you have subjected yourself to 
 the action of the Court, and accordingly I commit you to prison until further orders. 
 
 So young Molloy disappeared, with his brace of detectives, through the 
 doorway in the screen, for a short sojourn in prison, 
 
 "■Mike Burke!" And Mike Burke, answering to his name, shambled, 
 with bent head, into the witness-box. At the announcement of Mike's place 
 of residence — Ballyronan, border of Gal way and Mayo — Sir Charles Russell 
 protested. " Why are we skipping to Mayo ? " — county Cork not being done 
 with. Once or twice before Sir Charles had witnesses "sprung upon him "by 
 the Attorney-General, and he objected to a repetition of the process. But he 
 was overruled, and Mr. ]\Iichael Burke, ex-Land Leaguer, ex-Secret Society 
 man, proceeded to unfold his startling and, if true, damning and diabolical 
 •tale. Here at last, by his own account, was the informer who could bring 
 
70 Thursday] Diary of [Dec. 6- 
 
 home to the leaguers of INIayo the murder of Lord Mountmorres. In his 
 preliminary answers he stated that he had collected money for his branch of 
 the League ; that twelve or fifteen years ago in Jarrow, near Shields, he joined' 
 a secret society ; that he returned seven or eight years since to Mayo, where he 
 became a member of the League, collecting money for it, attending its meet- 
 ings, and learning its secrets. 
 
 "You remember Lord Mountmorres's murder?" asked Sir Richard 
 Webster, after a long pause, dropping his voice. Yes. And before the 
 deed was done the leaguers held a meeting — whereat the victim's name 
 was mentioned. Burke was there himself — at the house of Pat Carney. 
 And he remembered the leaguers who were present— naming them. What 
 did they say and do ? Oh, it was "drawn down" that he should be done 
 away with. "Drawn down" meant talked over. It must have been a 
 murderous company, according to Informer Mike, for it was also *' drawn 
 down" that two other landlords should be "done away with." Informer 
 Mike, as he stood there in his box, spoke about despatching his fellow-creatures 
 to the other world as indifferently as if he were talking of sending some- 
 thing by parcel-post. "Yes," Mike went on, with a reflective nod of the- 
 head, and leaning his elbow on the ledge of his box, Lord Mountmorres was- 
 to be " done away with," but as to the others it was " disagreed on." 
 
 On the side of the high-road where Lord Mountmorres was murdered, and 
 some hours before the murder, Mike w^as working on a stone wall. As he- 
 worked away, Pat Sweeney came up to him. Help us "to do away with 
 Lord Mountmorres ? " asked Pat. "I will not," replied INIike ; "I have a 
 wife and children to look after." "I might do it but for that," INIike now- 
 explained, in answer to the Attorney-General. As he said this INIike gazed' 
 fixedly at the ceiling, and tapped the desk, reflectively, with the tips of his 
 fingers. Mike really seemed to be lost in thought — totally oblivious of the- 
 presence of my Lords Commissioners and the triple row of gentlemen in wigs. 
 
 " See any one else ? " Sir Richard Webster asked, in his quiet, slow way,, 
 bringing Mike back from the clouds. Oh, yes ; Pat Mulrow, another leaguer, 
 came up to Mike while Mike worked at his stone wall. Pat Sweeney remarked 
 to his friend Mike that he expected Lord Mountmorres would be done away 
 with that evening. A little while after, the doomed man himself passed that 
 way. Mike saw him — and minded his own business, thinking all the more 
 perhaps. 
 
 His day's "job" finished, Mike trudged off to the public-house — and there 
 he found, besides Carney (the keeper of the public-house), his fellow-leaguers^ 
 Barrett, Mulrow, INIurphy, Handbury, Hennelly, and ^Yilliam Bourke, and' 
 Fallow and Pat Sweeney. Again, Sweeney and Carney tried to induce him 
 to " lend a hand " in " doing away with " Lord Mountmorres. " What did 
 you say? " asked Sir Richard. " I told Carney that I might go." They went 
 on with their talk, and doubtless with their drink, and in about an hour's time 
 "I missed some of them," said Mike. He could hardly have expressed it 
 better had he been a literary artist. 
 
 In another hour they came back, and on Mulrow's hand he noticed some- 
 thing. Then, said INIike, we went home together, and they told me they 
 had done away with Lord Mountmorres. Though the informer gave his 
 answers after many reflective pauses, he yet gave them clearly and decisively 
 enough. He was circumstantial ; still retained a minute recollection of the- 
 events preceding the murder ; and ran off the names of his League confederates 
 with sufficient readiness. But when Sir Charles Russell took him in hand' 
 Informer Mike became changed. He seemed to have completely forgotten 
 the most familiar events of his life. His answers — given out with slow 
 deliberation — alternated between doubt and blank ignorance. He forgot the 
 year in which he returned from North England to Ireland. " Don't know 
 
TImrsday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 6. 71 
 
 what ye mane," he growled. "What year is this?" asked Sir Charles 
 Russell. But Mike wouldn't swear to it. It might be '87, '88, '89. " Can't 
 swear to it," repeated Mike, taking hold of himself by his coat collar, and 
 slowly nodding, with the air of a cautious man who did not like to commit 
 himself. 
 
 He could not tell how long he had been in Jarrow, nor whether he had 
 worked years or only months for the same master. " Might be months, might 
 be years," he uttered, thoughtfully gazing once more at the ceiling. Nor 
 could he tell the name of the secret society of which he was a member ; nor 
 did he remember his oath, if there was one ; nor whether he used to know, 
 and be known by, his fellow-members by means of signs and passwords. 
 "Were you sworn on a book?" "I was sworn in a back yard," was the 
 reply. Mike was growing more and more unmanageable. He would repeat 
 Sir Charles's questions; or reply with an "Eh," or with a nasal snarl of an 
 "m'm." In his fits of silent contemplation he would thrust out his bushy 
 chin, stare at the ceiling, shrug his shoulders, tap with his forefingers. 
 
 " Look me in the face," exclaimed Sir Charles Russell at last, sharply ; and 
 then one saw that INIike's full face was much more unpleasant than his profile. 
 Hitherto he had looked nobody in the face. Now, however, he gazed at 
 Sir Charles Russell steadily. Mike had small eyes, slightly oblique ; narrow, 
 receding forehead, wide cheekbones. But the chief feature was the mouth — 
 a short, tight, straightish slit, almost expressionless. 
 
 The informer had been, as already said, glib enough with the names of hi 
 fellow-leaguers ; but now, when Sir Charles Russell cross-examined him, he 
 could not say who asked him to join, nor whether the meetings which 
 he had attended, really were Land League meetings ; nor even whether a 
 League branch existed in the locality before the murder. There might have 
 been, and there might not ! But Sir Charles Russell had a long struggle 
 with him before he got that admission from him. To the Attorney-General 
 the informer said that Carney was secretary of the League. All he could now 
 say was that Carney was secretary of " something." He was not even sure 
 that all those men whose names he had given were leaguers. They might, or 
 might not ! Mike's evidence seemed to be falling to pieces. When pressed 
 on these last questions he seemed uneasy. Then, once more, he became 
 absorbed in the architecture of Mr. Street's masterpiece. Then he began to 
 button his coat — taking a long time about it. " When you've done buttoning 
 your coat, you will perhaps attend to me," exclaimed Sir Charles. 
 
 " Attend to me ! " Sir Charles Russell repeated, sharply. Mike looked 
 down, stuck his elbows on the ledge ; his shoulders rose about his ears ; and 
 the obliquish eyes flashed viciously. 
 
 " ^\^lo saw you about your evidence?" Sir Charles asked. "I don't 
 understand," said Mike, after a long pause. No answer would Mike give save 
 "Eh" — "eh" — "m'm," as he thrust out his chin, took hold of himself by 
 his coat collar, and became lost in thought. "Can't you answer?" the 
 President interposed, sharply. "I don't understand what the man manes," 
 retorted Mike, pointing, with his thumb, to Sir C. Russell. Sir Charles's 
 questions were meant to elicit from him whether he had been nursed and 
 primed, so to speak, for the day's work by policemen and others. But Mike 
 would only say that he " expected " his evidence was read over to him ; he 
 could not tell whether he rehearsed his evidence yesterday or the day before. 
 '• Was it read over to you this morning ? " — to which question there were three 
 successive answers. "It might," " I think it was," " It was.'' But then a 
 cloud of black, impenetrable forgetfulness instantly passed over Mike's mind, 
 for he could not tell whether the reading took place in his lodgings. 
 
 Burke was a month in gaol on suspicion of having murdered Lord Mount- 
 morres. Mr. Davitt now tried to get some definite information from him, but 
 
7.2 Friday'] Diary of [Dec. 7. 
 
 vainly. ISIike Burke " might or might not " have been tried before Lord 
 Mountmorres ; he "might or might not" have svi'orn the dreadful Ribbon 
 oath ; the police authorities "might or might not" have talked to him about 
 the evidence he was to give in court. Nothing more could Mr. Davitt get 
 from him. 
 
 You saw Lord Mountmorres twice on the day he was murdered, and knew there was a vote 
 to murder him ? — I was not sure he was going to be killed. 
 
 Did 5'ou not know that his life was in danger? — It might have been. 
 
 Dit it occur to yo\i to go and warn him? — Of what would I be going to warn him ? How 
 was I to know that it was to be done ? 
 
 Do not you think that would have been a manly and Christian duty to perform ? — I was at 
 my work, and it was not likely I was going to lay aside my work for anything. 
 
 Not to warn a man in danger of murder ? — I was employed by another man, and I could 
 not leave my work before six o'clock. 
 
 You could go into a plot to murder a man, but 5'ou could not warn him ? — You are too clever 
 a man for me. I do not understand. 
 
 Informer Burke then left the box, and Mr. Atkinson returned to county- 
 Cork in search of more outrages. The most important of the outrage-witnesses 
 for Cork was a Mr. Kelleher, who was shot at by moonlighters, because he 
 took possession of a farm as security for a loan which the borrower was unable 
 to pay. Mr. Kelleher declared emphatically that to the best of his belief the 
 Land League had nothing to do with the outrage. He also admitted that 
 compensation was refused him in court, on the ground that the whole thing 
 was a " family quarrel." But there was in Mr. Kelleher's evidence something 
 more interesting and important. He revised Mr. Hussey's history of Arcadia. 
 It will be remembered that Mr. Hussey, landlord and agent, described the 
 country during 1848 to 1879 as content and prosperous. But Mr. Kelleher 
 w^as brought up on one of the estates on which Mr. Hussey w^as agent, and he 
 remembered its history — how people were evicted in the horrible times of 
 1848-9 ; how people died of hunger, how people were buried without coffins. 
 Who was responsible for these evictions ? — Why, INIr. Hussey, said the witness. 
 
 TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 December 7. 
 
 When ISIr. Patrick Molloy appeared in court to-day, at twenty-five minutes 
 to eleven o'clock, he found waiting for him — besides the Commissioners, and 
 seniors and juniors three deep — a crowded and curious audience. The con- 
 flicting rumours about what Mr. Patrick Molloy would do — expose the leaguers, 
 according to one account ; " dish" and make sport of The Ti/nes, according 
 to another — aroused interest in him. So when the usher called out for Patrick 
 ISIolloy, every eye was turned to the entrance through which Mr. Patrick 
 Molloy was composedly elbowing his way in the custody of a police-ofiicer. 
 Handing his coat to somebody — with the air of a grand duke attended by his 
 valet — Mr. Molloy as composedly walked into the witness-box. He raised the 
 sacred volume lazily to his lips, jerked it aside (a slight jerk it w^as, executed 
 with a little turn of the w-rist) — he slowly stuck his thumbs into his waistcoat 
 pockets, and he gazed calmly, first at the lawyers and then at the galleries. 
 Mr. Patrick Molloy has a lofty, square forehead, straight well-shaped nose, 
 large eyes under level brows, nicely-rounded chin, short upper lip. 
 
J^riday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 7. 73 
 
 " Where do you live? "said the Attorney-General. " Well," replied Mr. 
 jNIolloy, "my present address is Ilolloway Gaol, London." The ghost of a 
 flicker of a smile passes over the usually rigid features of ]Mr. Justice Day. 
 'J'hen Mr. Patrick INIolloy, leaning his right elbow on the ledge, crossing 
 his legs, and assuming a picturesque attitude, directed his calm, level gaze on 
 jNIr. Attorney. 
 
 It would be difficult to say which of the two seemed the more unconcerned. 
 The Attorney-General, after about an hour's examination of Mr. Patrick 
 INIolloy, could scarcely get anything out of him except negatives. The reader 
 will understand at a glance the importance of this, by bearing in mind that the 
 questions put to I\Ir. Molloy by the Attorney-General were merely the inter- 
 rogative forms of distinct statements alleged to have been made by Mr. Molloy 
 to T/ie Times agents in Dublin. Listening to the Attorney-General's questions, 
 one heard what purported to be the witness's own depositions to The Times 
 agent — depositions read out to him for his correction and approval before their 
 transmission from Dublin to The Times solicitors in London. 
 
 But here, in the witness-box, was Patrick Molloy absolutely, contemptuously 
 denying — in his long string of negative answers — that he had said this, that, 
 and the other thing to The Times agents a week or two ago in Dublin. He 
 was charged with having said in Dublin that he was a Fenian. Here he averred 
 ihat the charge was a fabrication. Nor did he know Carey the informer — 
 "never knew the man in my life" — nor was it true that that paper (nodding 
 at it carelessly) from which the Attorney-General w^as reading had been 
 written in his presence ; nor was it true that The Times agent read it out to 
 him for his approval ; nor did he read it himself ; nor was it true that he said 
 he had been invited to join the Invincibles some years ago ; nor was it true 
 that he knew Mr. Davitt, nor that he said he would make strange revelations 
 about Mr. Davitt. 
 
 Molloy described in some detail how the correspondence between The Times 
 agent and himself was begim by The Times, and how the agent paid him;,^!! 
 — because ' ' I told him I could not leave for London unless I paid two small 
 debts." But, as ISIolldy now admitted, he owed no debts — though he enclosed 
 the money in two envelopes addressed to his supposed creditors, and posted 
 them in the presence of The Times agent. " You thought you were going to 
 get over him?" said Sir Richard Webster. "I did nothing of the sort," 
 retorted Molloy, "but I wanted to show up" how The Times agents were 
 doing their work. In other words, as — according to Molloy — The Times 
 agents would make him out to be a Fenian and an Invincible, and an associate 
 of murderers, why Mr. Patrick Molloy would fool them to the top of their bent 
 and give them a good run for their money. That was his way of putting it. 
 
 But, said Sir Richard, trying him again, did you not tell Mr. Walker, 
 The Times agent, that it would be dangerous for you to come to London ? 
 "I did," replied Molloy, wrinkling his forehead, and shrugging his shoulders 
 slightly. " Did you think it would be dangerous ? " continued the Attorney- 
 General. 
 
 "Not at a-a-all," drawled out Mr. Molloy, thrustmg out his under 
 lip, half-closing his eyes, and smiling, as if in kindly compassion at Mr. 
 Attorney's simplicity. " But didn't you say you would be shot if you gave 
 evidence ? " "I did ; but there was no danger at all. Ach ! " said he, point- 
 ing carelessly with his thumb to Mr. Walker, who sat on the solicitors' bench, 
 "that man thought I knew a lot about the Fenians, and that I could tell lots 
 of things about Davitt and all that ; they supposed I knew a great deal " — and 
 here ]\Ir. Patrick Molloy laughed, privately, as it were, holding his head down, 
 balancing himself on his elbows, and slowly rubbing his palms together. 
 
 The Attorney-General now struck out another line of cross-examination. 
 -He tried to get Molloy to admit that he had been an Invincible, had known. 
 
74 Friday] Diary of [Dec, f^ 
 
 and been actively connected with, the Phoenix Park murders. But though 
 Molloy admitted he knew some of them more or less distantly, he denied he 
 knew they were Invincibles. He remembered having read in the papers,, 
 early in 1883, that Farrell, one of the Phoenix Park criminals, turning, 
 informer, denounced a person named Molloy, as having been one of the gang. 
 He also admitted that, after reading the intimation in the papers, he left for 
 America, without giving any notice to his Dublin employer. But he denied 
 that he thought Farrell's confession referred to him personally. 
 
 To Sir Charles Russell, who cross-examined him, Molloy said that he- 
 remained less than two years in America, that he returned "in his own name,"' 
 that he had been living in Dublin ever since, "openly." Then Sir Charles- 
 invited Molloy to tell his story in his own way. Sir Charles placed his right 
 foot on the seat, and his elbow on his knee, listened, and took a pinch or two 
 of snuff. Young Mr. Molloy, leaning forward over his box, with his elbows 
 on the ledge, poured forth his story — wherewith he himself seemed at times to^ 
 be highly delighted. 
 
 What did INIr. Walker, The Times agent, saj' to you? — He said he knew all about me p. 
 that Mr. Davitt was a Fenian, and that so also were Dr. Kenny, i\I.P., Mr. John O'Connor,, 
 and Mr. Biggar. He sought information from me about them and others. 
 
 Then I may understand from your consulting your friends in this business that you were- 
 humbugging The Times agent ? — Yes ; I was humbugging him. 
 
 According to Molloy's story, it was The Times agent who began the game. 
 Molloy was at the time a publisher's traveller. ]\lr. Walker looked over his> 
 books and " plates," admiring them, as if he meant to buy. At last Mr. 
 Walker threw off his disguise. "I am The Times agent," said he; and! 
 what he wanted was, not books and plates, but information. Molloy had 
 none to give. Come now, you have, said, in effect, the agent ; I can^ 
 prove you were a Fenian, a Leaguer, and an Invincible ; tell me what you 
 know about Egan, Byrne, Sheridan, Kenny, and the rest. And then it was,, 
 according to Molloy's tale, that Molloy resolved to make sport of The Times^ 
 
 Before Mr. Molloy left the box, a question or two was put to him by Mr.. 
 Davitt :— 
 
 Did you understand The Times agent to offer you money if you would incriminate me? — 
 Yes. 
 
 Did he seem to care whether you swore trulj' or falsely? — No. 
 
 Do 3-ou believe it to be common report in Ireland that the Government and TJie Times are- 
 sending all over the country' either giving to people or threatening them to induce them to- 
 give evidence against me and others ? 
 
 But here the Attorney-General intervened. And the President ruled that 
 the question was out of order. "Well, my lord," Mr. Davitt said, "that is- 
 my belief as to the game that is going on ; and I considered this wit- 
 ness was the proper one to be asked the question." To Mr. Davitt the 
 witness conducted himself with marked respect. The low, sweeping bow 
 (accompanied with a smile) with which Alolloy gave his answer about 
 " incriminating " Mr. Davitt did considerable credit to Mr. Molloy's histrionic 
 powers. 
 
 The last act in this funny piece — about the funniest since the trial began — 
 was short. Mr. Walker, entering the witness-box, seemed somewhat 
 embarrassed — which was natural, under the circumstances. He informed Sir 
 Richard Webster that the person from whom he first got Molloy's name- 
 was a Mr. Houston, of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union. "Our time 
 wasted," the President remarked. And so the w^hole case, in so far as the 
 ingenious Molloy was for the time being concerned, fell to the ground. Molloy, . 
 from his place in the crowd, watched the collapse. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. ii. 75, 
 
 TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 DeCEIMBER II. 
 
 To-day's business ranged over Cork, Mayo, and Kerry — but principally over- 
 the second-named. As it was expected that the informer, Thomas O'Connor, 
 would be reproduced for cross-examination, the court was full before half-past 
 ten o'clock, in spite of the dense fog. As soon as it was seen that the 
 informer W'Ould not be examined that day, the visitors began to leave. If" 
 excitement was the object of their visit they lost nothing — for the proceedings 
 were the least interesting since the trial began. 
 
 " My Oh ! " exclaimed Sir Henry, " I don't understand you. What do yoir 
 mean by ' My Oh ' ? " The person addressed was a police officer from Swyn- 
 ford district. Mr. M'Ardell gazed in surprise at Sir Henry James. And then 
 it was explained to the learned counsel that Mr. M'Ardell meant Mayo- 
 county. INIr. M'Ardell, a district inspector, gave an account of threatening 
 notices which had been posted up, in 1882, throughout the locality, and in., 
 which the tenants were invited to pay no rent and to avoid the land courts... 
 Of course, the theory of the prosecution was that these threatening notices, 
 were the work of the leaguers. But Sir Charles Russell, for the opposite side,., 
 elicited the fact that distress existed in the locality before the estabhshment 
 there of the Land League. This witness also stated that at the period of the 
 threatening notices several secret societies existed in the neighbourhood ; and 
 again, that outrages increased after the League leaders were imprisoned. 
 
 Four witnesses were called by the prosecution to give evidence as to the 
 state of Swynford district during the early days of the League. The most 
 interesting of the four was Ann Gallagher, daughter of a tenant who had been^ 
 moonlighted for (as it was alleged) paying his rent. Like most Mayo folk, 
 she pronounced the letter " s " as if it wxre " sh." So, by the way, does her 
 excellent Archbishop, whose name was mentioned once or twice in the course of ' 
 the day's proceedings. Asked what the moonlighters were like, Miss Gallagher 
 replied that " they were dressed in black clothes, like the poleesh." The- 
 rogues who visited her were cowards, for, said she, "they gave me a few 
 blows." As for Mr. Gallagher, her father, they " tould him to keep his rint in 
 his pocket and to fortune his daughter," Fortuning his_ daughter meant, 
 giving her a dowry on her marriage. All over Ireland it is the commori 
 expression that Pat So-and-so had such-and-such a "fortune" with his wife ;. 
 fortune, it is called, whether the amount be ten pounds or ten hundred. 
 
 Next followed a money-lender, or "gombeen man," as he is called in 
 Ireland. His name was Sloyne. He, too, guilty of having paid his "rint,"' 
 was dragged out of bed at night and given " a few shtrokes." A few strokes, 
 said Mr. Sloyne, almost jauntily, as if the strokes had been administered by a 
 lady's fan — or as if they came in the ordinary course of nature like "a few" 
 drops of rain. In answer to Mr. Davitt, this little gombeen man stated that, 
 he charged, as yearly interest, three shillings in the pound — which, to do Mr. 
 Sloyne justice, seems moderate for a gombeen man. Mr. Davitt's questions 
 were intended to find out whether the visitation of the gombeen man might 
 have been caused by harshness to a defaulting borrower, or by his refusal of 
 acknowledgment for sums paid. 
 
 The next story, that of David Freeney, was at once a story of a tragical and 
 brutal crime, and a repudiation — as complete as the witness could make it — of 
 the notion that the leaguers could have had something to do with it. Freeney's 
 offence w^as that he had paid his rent. He described circumstantially how he 
 jumped into "the loft" when the moonlighters came, how they dragged his . 
 son outside, how his son escaped from them, how his son was dragged out a 
 
76 Tuesday] Diary of [Dec. 11, 
 
 second time, how the ruffians fired twice, and how, when he descended from 
 his "loft," he found his son dead on the doorstep. The language of these 
 moonlighters and their victims has a strange significance. When the son was 
 dragged outside by his murderers he was asked to "free himself" from the 
 reproach of having paid more than some of his neighbours were willing to 
 give ; whereupon his mother reasoned with the murderers that it was impos- 
 sible for her son to "free himself," because it was not he who had paid the 
 money. Sir Charles Russell's cross-examination brought out the following 
 facts : that Freeney had only done what "most" of the tenants had already done, 
 or were ready to do — accept a certain rate of abatement ; that the League had 
 not objected to the payment of rent with the abatement — 25 per cent. ; that 
 Freeney declared that the local League had even approved of the compromise. 
 Again, the League denounced the murder ; so did the Archbishop of Tuam 
 and the clergy in all the parishes round about. Said Sir C. Russell, " Have 
 you any reason to suppose that the Land League had anything to do with the 
 murder of your son ? " " None whatever, sir." 
 
 An atrocious murder case — the murder of a man named Dillon, for no other 
 ascertainable cause, said his son in the witness-box, than that he had been 
 seen attending the sheriff at evictions. This was in 1 88 1. The son found 
 the father lying dead by the roadside with a bullet in his head. It was a 
 mysterious case, because, as the witness said, his father was popular in the 
 neighbourhood up to the day of his death. Sir Charles Russell dwelt strongly 
 on this point, with the object of showing that, as the people generally were 
 members of the League, the leaguers, as such, could have had nothing to do 
 with the murder. Very popular ? asked Sir Charles. Yes, said the witness, 
 and all the people about came to his "wake," and "my father's funeral 
 was very respectable, very large. " After this, there followed a long series of 
 questions about young Dillon's father's habit of going to the neighbouring 
 police-hut to play cards ; about one of the policemen having been charged with 
 the murder ; about his father's pockets having been found empty, although it 
 was his father's custom to carry a liberal supply of money with him. But 
 nothing definite came of these bald, dreary, and paltry — if occasionally mourn- 
 ful — details. 
 
 Dillon's case being disposed of, Mr. Ronan "skipped" — as Sir Charles 
 Russell would say — from INIayo to county Cork, and to a landlord named Mr. 
 Thomson, whose tenants notified that they would not pay unless they got 
 thirty per cent, reduction. This, said the agent, who was now in the box, came 
 about in 1885, and it was the National Leaguers' doing. The leading statement 
 in the witness's story was that after he had served wi'its upon the defaulters, 
 three tenants voluntarily paid the rent, among them a Mr. O'Donnell, who 
 soon after he paid his rent wrote to the agent requesting that he should be 
 "noticed" again as if the amount were still due. O'Donnell's letter to the 
 agent was read out. The w^riter declared that his life would be in danger 
 if it were supposed he had paid. Then followed a batch of dull cases, the 
 substance of which must be compressed into a few lines. They were i^Iayo 
 cases — another "skip" having been made from Cork. The first was pensioner 
 Fahy's. In July, 18S1, Fahy's house was fired into, a threatening notice was 
 stuck upon it, because he had taken land from which another had been evicted. 
 The next witness, ]Moloney, had his ears bored, and his person kicked, for a 
 similar offence. And the third witness, a landlord, named Mr. Carter, had 
 been shot in the leg because, as he said, his tenants were displeased with his 
 treatment of them. Like other landlords, Mr. Carter described the pre-League 
 condition of society as one of contentment. As soon as the first League branch 
 was established in his neighbourhood, tenants who always had been punctual 
 . stopped payment, and dissension followed between him and them. 
 
 It is the old story. Every landlord, ever}- landlord's agent who has appeared at 
 
Wednesday] the Parncll Commission. [Dec. 12. 7/ 
 
 this trial has said the same thing. Mr. Carter's memory must have been somewhat 
 at fauh. He said at first that taking his estates all round, the Land Commis- 
 sioners had made hardly any reductions on his old rents. But Mr. Reid and 
 Mr. Lockwood quoted some starthng figures — in one case a rental of twelve 
 pounds a year having been reduced by the Court to five pounds. Moreover, 
 before he was done with, jNIr. Carter admitted that the Land Court might have 
 reduced his rents by 20 per cent. 
 
 Lastly, Sir Henry James "skipped" from Mayo to Kerry. As a story of 
 the ordinaiy relations which in disturbed Ireland subsist between landlord and 
 tenant, Miss Thompson's account of her experiences in leaseholding, in trustee- 
 ship, in managing estates extending over thousands of acres, would perhaps 
 be interesting to some people. The best thing in her story was its evidence of 
 her energy and determination, and of her skill as an administrator. She dated 
 her eight years' troubles from January, 1881, when the leaguers held their 
 meeting at Tralee — at which meeting Mr. E. Harrington was present. Miss 
 Thompson narrated how she had been boycotted ; how wire ropes were stretched 
 across her path in the dark, to her personal injury ; how none would work for 
 her except emergency men ; how her property had been destroyed, and her 
 cattle mutilated. 
 
 TWENTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 December 12. 
 
 Miss Thompson, whose cross-examination was adjourned yesterday at four 
 o'clock, re-entered the witness-box, and Sir Charles Russell resumed his 
 questions. Miss Thompson was one of the best witnesses — if not the best — who 
 had yet appeared on The Times side. But it seemed difficult to understand 
 what connection, if any. Miss Thompson's case had with the Land League. 
 
 In most of the cases brought forward by The Times the general argument 
 has been somewhat as follows : — In such and such a locality the Land League 
 came into existence at such and such a date, and then there followed a complete 
 change in the conduct and demeanour of the tenants towards their landlords, 
 accompanied by outrages and refusals to pay rent. But Miss Thompson's 
 troubles began long before there existed a Land League branch anywhere in 
 Ireland — to say nothing of Kerry, Miss Thompson's own county. Well, then, 
 where was the connection ? As the President put it, towards the end of Miss 
 Thompson's cross-examination, " nothing comes into existence instant er.'''' 
 Whereupon the Attorney-General rose to say that it was part of their 
 case to show^ that speeches, provocative of disorder, had been delivered 
 throughout the whole of 1879, before the League came into existence, as well 
 as after that date. But in this little discussion the Attorney-General made a 
 curious mistake. He said that he could prove the delivery of these 1879 speeches 
 from United Ireland. Sir Richard Webster was unaware, or had forgotten, 
 that United Ireland yN?.% not established until long after 1879. The contention 
 of the prosecution is that though the League did not formally come into exist- 
 ence before October, 1879, it existed months earlier in the speakers who were 
 propagating the doctrines which, a few months later, were to be embodied in 
 the published rules and principles of the League. For example, the Irishtown 
 speech of Mr. Davitt — the Father of the League — was delivered in June, 1S79. 
 
 "You Avere never called your royal honour?" said Sir Charles, addressing 
 Miss Thompson. No, INIiss Thompson had never been addressed in that style by 
 her tenants — though one of the counsel present remarked that it used to be a 
 
78 Wednesday] Diary of [Dec. 12. 
 
 'Common mode of salutation. Me was right. A very curious cliapter of 
 the social history of contemporary Ireland might be unravelled if the lawyers 
 •examined the Irish peasants on their ways of showing respect to their land- 
 :Jords — dismounting and halting by the roadside until the great man passed ; 
 standing bareheaded, in rain or in sunshine, outside his study window, await- 
 ing his pleasure ; even kneeling before him when they came to pay their rent or 
 ask for a little indulgence. 
 
 In so far as Miss Thompson's experience was concerned, the change in the old 
 ^manners began pretty early in the year of the League. The tenants became 
 *' uncivil," said Miss Thompson : they became rude, exacting, and showed signs 
 •of a change in opinion on the subject of ownership. 
 
 Still, as Sir Charles Russell remarked, all that happened before there was 
 any Land League anywhere. " Well," Miss Thompson exclaimed, quickly, " it 
 ■{the Land League) was brewing." The expression caused some laughter. " Brew- 
 ing in the air?" asked Sir Charles. "Yes," replied Miss Thompson, smiling. 
 But if it did not occur to Miss Thompson's tenants to address her as " your royal 
 honour," Miss Thompson was, according to her own candid account, a model 
 *' landlord." (The substantive is Sir Charles Russell's.) "Yes," "Yes," 
 "Yes," she said, quietly, firmly, modestly to his successive questions as to 
 whether she considered herself a good landlord, a considerate landlord. And 
 certainly, according to the traditional Irish idea of landlord. Miss Thompson 
 was, and is, a model landlord. Her cross-examination has clearly showed that 
 for administrative ability, and what is called "character," Miss Thompson is 
 perhaps the ablest "landlord" who has yet appeared as a witness for T/ie 
 Times. 
 
 However, the point at issue was not her ability, but her " goodness," "con- 
 siderateness," &c., as a landlord and a manager. As regards this point she 
 'declared, in reply to Sir Charles Russell, that her tenants always had fair rents. 
 Here Sir Charles became slightly satirical. Were her tenants always " free " 
 agents. Yes, they were. Had Miss Thompson ever given a farthing of abatement 
 until the Land Courts appeared on the scene ? Certainly not. And Miss 
 Thompson clearly gave Sir Charles to understand that she considered the Land 
 Courts as meddlers and nuisances. " My tenants," said Miss Thompson, 
 "were all better off before the agitation." After Miss Thompson said this her 
 firm lips closed, with an expression of contempt, as if there could be no mis- 
 take whatever in her views of the League and the social history of Kerry. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell went into the figures of rent-reductions on the estates 
 ■owned or managed by Miss Thompson ; and the figures were — many of them 
 — startling, for they showed that, in spite of Miss Thompson's estimation about 
 her own "fairness," the Land Courts reduced her rents very largely. To 
 ■quote a few instances, from £(i^ to £^'] ; from £']% to ^^48 ; from ^69 to 
 ;!^43 ; from £']'^ to £^'] ; from ^45 to ^^27. In fact, taking one of the chief 
 •estates managed by her. Miss Thompson would not be prepared to deny that 
 the average rate of rent-reduction upon it, authorized by the Land Courts, 
 amounted to " nearly thirty per cent." But then, in this firm and resolute 
 ■lady's opinion, the Land Commission were mischievous interlopers. 
 
 " What is your profession ?" asks the Attorney-General. " An Irish land- 
 lord," quoth the gentleman in the box. Mr. Attorney not only smiles, he 
 laughs. The President is considerably amused, and the genial-looking gentle- 
 man in the box looks as if he enjoyed his little joke. When he first appeared, 
 Mr. E. M. Richards, of county Wexford [to which we have for the moment 
 ■*' skipped "], was mistaken for a clergyman — because of his black broadcloth 
 and white " choker." Mr. Richards seemed quite happy, although by his own 
 account he found his " profession " of an Irish landlord uphill work — found it, 
 that is, from the year 1880, the annus terj'ibilis of the landowners, and 
 ■constables. So that, in essentials, Mr. E. M. Richards, of county Wexford, 
 was merely saying ditto to Miss Thompson, of county Kerry. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec, 12. 79 
 
 Up to 1880 ^Ir. Richards always got his rents — or "my agent did," said he. 
 "When asked how, as regards the popular manner and demeanour, he could 
 distinguish between the good old time and the new, he stated that up to 1880 
 .the peasantry were respectful, that they came twice a year, at stated days, 
 punctually to pay their rents ; but m December, 18S0, his tenants came in a 
 body (he had sixty tenants in all) two-and-two, many of them on horseback, 
 •with their spokesman at their head, to say that they would pay no rents higher 
 than the Government valuation. JNIr. Richards' was a fairly good picture, in 
 words, of a peasant crowd such as may be seen anywhere, any day, in Irish 
 • country places. He described himself standing on his doorstep, watching the 
 cavalcade of mounted labourers and farmers ; and, like a good old Irish land- 
 ■lord, he told them there and then he would make no concessions to demands 
 advanced in that new-fangled style. As in Miss Thompson's case, the days of 
 peasant deference were gone for ever. One would like to know whether his 
 tenants had ever called him, "Your royal honour." 
 
 But how to connect all this with the League ? Well, there was the order of 
 "time ; for a branch of the League now started on its career in Mr. Richards's 
 neighbourhood. Some of his tenants told him that if they paid their rents they 
 ■" would be shot like dogs," but Mr. Richards knew of no intimidating society 
 ■or organization of any kind then existing, except this new-born League. Mr. 
 Richards told a story of his being obliged to meet a tenant by appointment 
 in a wood at night, in order to receive from him the rent due. At this stage 
 occurred a dispute between the opposing counsel, an important expression of 
 -opinion by the President, and a friendly little " scene " between ^Ir. Justice 
 Smith and Sir Charles Russell. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell, becoming impatient at the diffuse nature of the 
 'e\adence, and at the sudden " skip " to Wexford, asked if the inquiry was now 
 to extend over that county. Sir Charles appealed directly to the President, 
 -who replied as follows : — 
 
 Having been referred to upon this matter, I desire to state that I contemplate the future 
 ^th alarm. We have been engaged for I know not exactly how many days on this inquiry, 
 .and we have not got to the end of any one branch of the subject ; we have only entered into 
 two of them, and there remain several others at any rate as important as the branches we have 
 entered upon. It is impossible for us, sitting as a court of justice, to interfere, because the 
 only ground would be that the evidence was irrelevant, and to arrive at the conclusion we must 
 liear the whole of it together with the cross-examination. Therefore, all that I can do is to 
 express my earnest hope that the utmost efforts will be made to compress the evidence within 
 some limits, which have, I am bound to say, been somewhat exceeded, in some instances at 
 .any rate. Rarely, if ever, can any legal investigation be exhaustive. Life is not long enough, 
 and we must be allowed to hope that the years of our lives may not be consumed by this 
 inquiry. 
 
 The Attorney- General pleaded that he had always tried to compress his 
 ■evidence to the utmost. " That's always the argument," retorted Sir Charles 
 Russell. "And I assure your lordships," added Sir Charles, warmly, "that 
 it has been a matter of great trouble and consideration among counsel on this 
 .side as to whether we are really justified in attending here and causing so 
 much expense, to meet some of the e\adence." " I think," Sir Charles added 
 •emphatically, ' ' that the time has arrived for an expression of opinion from the 
 JBench." Upon this, ]vlr. Justice Smith, leaning over his desk, remarked — 
 
 But your side has not curtailed the cross-examination, Sir Charles. 
 Sir Charles Russell — That inevitably follows. 
 
 IMr. Justice Smith — Pardon me. When you have a long cross-examination, the other side 
 -will follow the example. 
 
 Mr. Reid, rising quickly, protested that counsel on his side fully and freely 
 admitted the perpetration of these outrages, that it was unnecessary to repeat 
 -them, and that "the recital of every incident and detail was done for the 
 
8o Wednesday] Diary of [Dec. 12^ 
 
 ake of drawing the public sympathy to the side of T/ie Times ; " in other words, 
 that the purpose of all that minute recital was to associate in the public mind 
 the idea of outrage with the idea of the League. 
 
 Then Mr. Lockwood, addressing the bench, made a similar protest on his 
 
 own behalf. 
 
 Mr. Justice Smith — I don't say you. I simply remarked that when you make a long cross- 
 examination, the other side will follow. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell — It is not that at all. We follow them. You are putting the cart before 
 the horse. 
 
 To this Mr. Justice Smith made no reply. 
 
 Mr. Richards had his parting shot at the League. He repeated his belief 
 that the illegal agitation in his district was caused by it. Sir Richard 
 Webster then sat down. In the usual order of things, the cross-examination 
 should now be made by Sir Charles Russell and his colleagues. But Sir Charles 
 kept his seat. " I won't ask you anything," he said, throwing a careless glance 
 at the occupant of the witness-box, and then at Mr. Justice Smith. " Nor I," 
 said Mr. Reid. 
 
 "Nor I," said Mr. Lockwood. In the somewhat awkward silence 
 that ensued, Mr. Richards disappeared. It was evident that Sir Charles 
 and his colleagues had made up their minds to show, in the most un- 
 mistakable manner possible, their determination to set their adversaries 
 a good example, and not to waste time by going over what they regarded 
 as stale or irrelevant matter. Not only did Sir Charles and his colleagues 
 refrain from cross-examining Mr. Richards, but they also followed the same 
 course with respect to all the six witnesses who followed him. " Nothing 
 to ask you — nothing to ask you," Sir Charles repeated, with a more or less 
 marked indication of impatience. The six of them were, so to speak, run into 
 the witness-box and then run out of it. 
 
 The most distinguished of the six was a renowned captain, who has rendered 
 the English language some service (or disservice). We mean the gentleman who 
 has added the verb "boycott" to the English vocabulary, and whose name is 
 in consequence as widely known over the habitable globe as are the names of 
 Homer, Moses, Dickens, or Parnell. Captain Boycott, late of county Mayo 
 (we have again "skipped," as Sir Charles would say, from Wexford), is a 
 shortish man, with a bald head, a rim of white hair, and heavy white moustache, 
 and patriarchally rich and flowing white beard. We need not repeat his tale. 
 Is it not written in the columns of the daily press of eight years ago? To 
 the Attorney- Genera], Captain Boycott (it sounds odd to call him by his own 
 name) made the stock deposition of landlords and landlords' agents : It was all 
 right up to 1879 or iS8o (as the case may be) ; a set of men, then or afterwards, 
 known as leaguers began to make a noise in the world, and then everything 
 went wrong. 
 
 We need not dwell any longer on Captain Boycott's story. Witness 
 No. 2 having made the uninteresting statement that fourteen people accused 
 of boycotting Captain Boycott were defended by counsel who were in- 
 structed by a Land League President, was summarily displaced by witness 
 number three, who said something about " Scrab's" (alleged) share in boycot- 
 ting Captain Boycott. Then number three was run out and number four run 
 in, and number four (who seemed to be still in a fright) told how he worked 
 for the captain a whole week, and how, after that, a bullet came through the 
 " doore." The fifth stated that the leaguers groaned at him because he let out 
 his cars to the captain. And the sixth and last told an almost identical tale. 
 As already said. Sir Charles Russell, ]\Ir. Reid, and Mr. Lockwood would 
 have nothing to say to any of the six. 
 
 Part of the first half of the sitting and nearly the whole of the period after 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Coiwnission. [Dec. 13. 81 
 
 luncheon were consumed in the examination of a single witness, District- 
 Inspector Gambell, of Tralee, Kerry, whose evidence was confined to the years 
 1886-7. His main statement was that he had never been able to trace crime 
 to any secret society except one — namely, the Moonlighters' Society ; and that 
 he "believed" moonlighters were leaguers under another name. "That is 
 not the question you were asked," Sir James Hannen remarked. Did he kiiozu 
 any who were at once moonlighters and leaguers ? After a little fencing with 
 the question, Mr. Gambell admitted that he was "not in a position " to make 
 any such identification. 
 
 All that Mr. Gambell, then, could say was that he found League branches 
 and the Moonlight Society co-existing — a fact of which all the world was 
 already sufficiently aware. The Attorney-General's position was this — that 
 crimes did follow Land League speeches, and that the alleged "offences" 
 which the moonlighters punished were the very "offences " that had previously 
 been denounced in League branches ; and that often the victims of moonlighter 
 outrages were persons who had been found fault with, by name, at League 
 meetings. And to prove that such meetings had been held, and to show what 
 " resolutions " had been passed at them, whole files of The Kerry Sentinel 
 were produced in court, and a long time was spent by the Attorney-General 
 and Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., in verifying them. It was a most tedious, dismal 
 process. It was the old story over again, which we feel sure the reader 
 would not suffer if he had the stale details presented to him here afresh. 
 None in court, except, of course, their lordships and the distingiushed lawyers 
 immediately concerned — and perhaps here and there a conscientious journahst 
 —paid the smallest attention to Mr. Attorney, Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., and 
 District-Inspector Gambell. 
 
 THIRTIETH DAY 
 
 December 13. 
 
 The first hour and a half of to-day's sitting was occupied with the somewhat 
 rambling examination of a police-sergeant from county Sligo, named Denis 
 Feeley. He was called to give evidence as to the course of events in some 
 parts of Sligo at the time of the foundation of the Land League, His story 
 began with April, 1879, and, to a large extent, was little more than a dry 
 catalogue of meetings, with dates, names of places, and names of speakers, 
 spread over a long series of months. The word " catalogue " was used by the 
 President himself, who clearly showed signs of impatience under Mr. Murphy's 
 chronological infliction. The most important part of the police sergeant's 
 rambling story was one in which he professed to give verbatim extracts from a 
 speech dehvered by Mr. Davitt from a hotel window in Claremorris, after 
 Mr. Davitt's return from a popular meeting at Irishtown. The witness 
 appeared to be quite certain that it was Mr. Davitt whose words he was 
 reporting. " But are you quite sure it was Mr. Davitt? " Sir Charles Russell 
 asked, as he rose to cross-examine. The police-sergeant replied that to " the 
 best of his recollection " it was Mr. Davitt. But that was not the question; 
 and as the police officer had just read from his note-book, utterances which he 
 ascribed to Mr. Davitt, Sir Charles insisted upon receiving a more explicit 
 answer. "I believe he was at the meeting," the sergeant then said, rather 
 hesitatingly. 
 
 "Why, sir," exclaimed Sir Charles Russell, sharply, raising his voice, 
 "have you not put into Mr. Davitt's mouth words advising the people to be 
 united ? " To this the sergeant repHed that he could swear he took down 
 
 7 
 
S2 Tlmrsday] Diary of [Dec, 13. 
 
 those very words immediately after the meeting. But this again was an evasion 
 of Sir Charles's question, which was repeated over and over again, with 
 precisely the same result. At last, Sir C. Russell, turning to Mr. Davitt, 
 who was all the while quietly sitting on the solicitors' bench, said, "There 
 is Mr. Davitt. Is that the man you saw?" " I think so," was the answer. 
 But to cut a long story short, it turned out that Mr. Davitt was not at the 
 meeting where the witness fancied he saw him. Even if it had been Mr. 
 Davitt, the expressions quoted from his imaginary oration were merely of the 
 ordinaiy stamp of speeches delivered at meetings open to the public. 
 
 However, the object of the prosecution was to show that these speeches and 
 meetings of the newly-born Land League, of which Mr. Murphy had given 
 his long catalogue, were followed by refusal to pay rent, and by crime ; and 
 that, except the Land League, no agency had ever been discovered to which 
 these illegalities could by any possibility be traced. 
 
 Accordingly Mr. E. Smith, the son of Lord Sligo's agent, went into the 
 witness-box. His story was short. One day in September, 1879, he drove out 
 with his father to collect rents. They were tired at by four people. The shots 
 missed. But Mr. Smith, junior, knew better how to handle his weapons, and 
 he shot dead on the spot one of his four assailants — the fate his would-be 
 murderer richly deserved. Now, this happened in September, 1879, and the 
 Land League was not formally established until October, 1879 (although, as 
 already recorded, the men who founded the Land League began these public 
 meetings as early as April). However, Mr. Smith declared that at the time 
 when the attempted murder took place he was unaware of the existence of a 
 Land League branch, either in his own parish or anywhere else. 
 
 "So then," said Sir Charles Russell, "both your father and yourself were 
 armed — was it necessary to carry arms at that time?" "We always carried 
 arms," was the reply. "What! for how long?" "For several years; we 
 always thought it prudent to do it." Sir Charles Russell pressed this point, 
 for obvious reasons — because his opponents have all along been undertaking to 
 prove that deeds of violence — such as the two Messrs. Smith had been pro- 
 viding against "for several years" — were unknown until the League arose, 
 demoralizing and corrupting the population. 
 
 2vlr. Smith admitted that he remembered hearing about the murder of 
 landlords in Connaught as far back as the years 1 869-7 1. With the view of 
 minimizing the importance of these admissions. Sir Henry James asked Mr. 
 Smith to show how the conduct of the people before 1879 — the League 
 3-ear — differed from their conduct subsequently. Mr. Smith's answer was 
 cautious and not very decided — "'I think it was harder to collect rents after 
 1879." • 
 
 Of poor old Hugh MacaulifFe, who followed Mr. Smith, there is very 
 little to be said. He was one of ^Mr. Smith's herds, and was persecuted for 
 that reason only, so it was alleged. ]Macaulifte being deaf, and failing to 
 understand what Mr. Murphy was saying, grabbed up his hat and made a 
 brusque attempt to leave his box, and come close up to him. The usher 
 stopped him, and then Macauliffe, with his elbow on the desk and his head 
 stretched out, rattled away in broad Hibernian-English, a description of the 
 midnight attack upon him, when the moonlighters, having replied with " Oh, 
 nothing," to his friendly challenge of "Hullo, boys, what's up?" proceeded 
 to point guns at him, two guns inside his cabin and ^nine outside. He was 
 not cross-examined. He was promptly dismissed, and away he went, muttering 
 to himself, as it seemed, the untold portion of his history. 
 
 Whenever Mr. J. C. Macdonald, manager of The T'i??ies, appears in court 
 early at a morning sitting, one may feel sure that something unusual is 
 about to happen. Mr. Macdonald appeared very early this morning, 
 and not long after him, there came in James Buckley, a Kerry "labourer." 
 
'Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 13. 83 
 
 "With his dark, neat attire, and white neckcloth, Mr. Buckley looked 
 
 •fashionable for a labourer. He was tall, and physically strong. Sir Henry 
 James examined him ; and Buckley began his veiy startling story with a 
 
 ■declaration that on the loth of November, 1880, he was sworn a member of 
 the Fenian Brotherhood in the presence of Land Leaguers, in the Land League 
 rendezvous, in the village of Causeway, near Tralee — county Kerry, as already 
 said. Thomas Dea was the man who asked him to join the Brotherhood; 
 and the two Land Leaguers in whose presence he was sworn were Tom's 
 brother — namely, Pat Dea — and Robert Dissett. Plaving been initiated, the 
 informer, according to his own story, attended many secret meetings of the 
 Fenian Brotherhood, which meetings were held in Pat Casey's house ; and 
 
 "there he met numbers of people who were leaguers. Casey's house was, he 
 said, the local League branch's headquarters. The branch secretary was a 
 man named Lynch, and he was also, according to Buckley's testimony, an 
 active member of the Fenian organization. William Feenicks was another 
 
 Jeaguer whom he met at these meetings, and among the rest were John 
 McGrath, two men of the name of Plarrington, Michael Lawler, and Samuel 
 Hayes. " I attended about a dozen of these Land League meetings in the 
 
 years 1880-1-2," said the witness. 
 
 Buckley, who never was a member of the Land League (though, as he said, 
 
 lie had often attended meetings of the League committee), had been six months 
 
 dn the Fenian Brotherhood when he was called upon to engage in his first 
 murder expedition. This was in May, 1881, when meeting the man Feenicks 
 
 :above named, he was informed by him that an attack would be made that night 
 
 -on a person named Sheehy. Sheehy's supposed offence was that he took a 
 farm from which his brother-in-law had been evicted. " Feenicks told me,'' 
 
 .-said Buckley, that I must assist in the attack, and that "I was to meet the 
 boys " at a spot three or four hundred yards from Sheehy's house. Buckley 
 
 then proceeded to say that he appeared at the spot at the appointed hour, that 
 he found there the leaguer Feenicks (before whom six months previously he 
 
 Jiad taken the Fenian oath), and that Feenicks then fired a revolver shot as a 
 
 -signal for the other "boys " to come up. There were eleven of us in all, said 
 Buckley. Among them were Dick Casey (at whose house the League meetings 
 ■were held), and Sam Hayes and Pat and John Harrington, and Michael Lawler, 
 
 :and Eugene Fitzgerald. "We all had white shirts over our clothes," said 
 Buckley; "there was only one revolver between us, but all, except the man 
 with the revolver, were armed with scythes and pitchforks." The gang was 
 formed up into two companies, one commanded by Eugene Fitzgerald, the 
 other by Feenicks. Buckley went with Fitzgerald's company, which made 
 
 :5traight for Sheehy's door, while Fitzgerald's men broke through the windows, 
 But, said Buckley, one of our men came round and reported that a nian had 
 escaped through a window ; and believing it was Sheehy, and that he was 
 
 Tunning to the police barracks, we ran away and dispersed. " My orders," 
 said Buckley, " were to drag Sheehy outside, tie him up, and if he refused to 
 
 .surrender the farm to his brother-in-law, to shoot him." This story was given 
 with ready and abundant detail. 
 
 A year passed away, and then this interesting witness had his second 
 
 ■opportunity of murdering a fellow-creature. This was in May, 1882 ; and 
 the intended victim was a Michael Roche, whose offence appeared to be that 
 he gave, or was suspected of giving, information to the police — information 
 
 .about the League, of which Roche himself had once been a member, and 
 from which he had been expelled. As Feenicks and Pat Dea had meanwhile 
 been in prison as suspects, the implication in Buckley's evidence was that 
 Roche's disclosures must have led to their arrest. Anyhow, it was at Pat 
 Dea's house that Roche's death was "arranged for," and the arrangement was 
 
 •.that the murder should be perpetrated by Fitzgerald, Feenicks, and Buckley. 
 
^4 Thursday'] Diary of [Dec. 13.. 
 
 Buckley and one of his colleagues followed Roche about one day soon after 
 the '* arrangement." But they gave up the attempt. " Then," said Buckley,. 
 *' as I lived next door to Roche, it was decided " — at another meeting of the 
 conspirators — " that I should shoot him myself; and that then I should be 
 sent away to America with the help of Land League money." 
 
 The witness also stated that his fellow-conspirators gave him a brace of 
 revolvers and "twenty-four rounds of ammunition" Avherewith to practise, so- 
 that he might be sure to hit his mark. All these minute details and a great 
 many more were, so to speak, run off the reel without a moment's hesitation. 
 
 Informer Buckley's description of his attempt upon neighbour Roche's life 
 was, if not picturesque, at least pictorial. One might fancy one saw Buckley 
 driving home his cattle in the evening, hailing neighbour Roche, asking him 
 how he was getting on ; and how Roche answered that he was getting on very 
 well, and how " Mr. Roche's head " was " turned away from me at the time" ; 
 and how then '* I took out my revolver and fired," and missed. But by firing he 
 meant pulling the trigger, and he missed for the best of reasons — that the bullet 
 refused to go. Then, according to his own account, the informer seized Mr. 
 Roche by the coat collar with his left hand. The trigger clicked four times — 
 that is to say, this neighbourly assassin "fired" four times — and yet the bullets 
 would not go off. After that it was pretty high time for Mr. Roche to 
 provide for his personal safety, which he did by shouting out "murder" and' 
 running away. 
 
 In the course of this villainous story Buckley said that he had taken the 
 precaution of hiding his revolver in a ditch, in order to avoid the risk of its 
 being found in his possession at home. Well, Roche ran to the police barracks. 
 And Buckley — according to pre-arrangement, ran to Pat Dea's house. At the 
 judicial investigation at Tralee, it was sworn by "witnesses" that Buckley 
 had all the while been in Dea's house (this also was pre-arranged, said Buckley). 
 And Roche made a mistake by testifying that he heard — or "saw" — the 
 bullets whizz past his ears — the fact being according to Buckley that the 
 revolver missed fire. And the investigation ended in Buckley's being let off 
 ©n his own recognizance. 
 
 The above story is the substance of the informer's examination-in-chief. 
 Sir Charles Russell now rose, and questioned him on the subject of his blood- 
 money. 
 
 Did you try- to get the monej' to go to America? — Yes. I applied to Fitzgerald, Patrick 
 Dea, and Feenleks. 
 
 What was said ?— One of them told me I would get the money, but they would have to go 
 to Thomas Digglns, the treasurer of the Land League, for it. In the evening of the same 
 Azy I saw Fitzgerald and Feenleks, and they gave me 50s., saying that was all the money in 
 the hands of INIr. DIgglns as treasurer of the League. 
 
 Were j'ou dissatisfied? — I was, and I told them so. Feenleks then told me that I couldn't 
 expect to get any more, as I didn't shoot Roche. They took me to Thomas Dea, and he 
 wrote a leUer which he gave me to take to Thomas Pearce, the president of the Land 
 League. 
 
 Did you take that letter to him ? — Yes. On the following day I gave him the letter, and he 
 read it through and retained it. He told me he would go round to some of the neighbours 
 and collect money to aid me in my escape to America. 
 
 Then Buckley described how he went from house to house soliciting money 
 to help him to " escape " to America. Tom Diggin's, at whose house he made 
 his first call, gave him two shillings. Mr. Pearce contributed two more. 
 Then the would-be murderer dunned the branch secretary, who gave him a 
 letter of introduction to another secretary, who gave him five shillings. His 
 collections ranged from one shilling to half-a-crown, the five shillings being a 
 solitary example of munificence. But nothing more serious happened to this 
 intending murderer (as he professed to be) than that he was bound over for 
 twelve months to keep the peace. 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 13. 85 
 
 Seeing that, according to his own account, there was no particular reason 
 why he should make haste to escape to America, the question arose whether 
 he had any right to keep the money. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell— After that, were you asked to return the money? — Yes. 
 
 What did you say ? — I told Air. Feenicks that I thought I was entitled to the money, and 
 as I had got it I would keep it. 
 
 How then were you treated ? — I was expelled from the society (the Fenian Society). I 
 ceased attending League meetings, and the people were less friendly with me than they were 
 before. 
 
 Said Sir Charles, sharply and loudly, " Can you name one single person in 
 Kerry who would believe you on your uncorroborated oath.?" A dreadful 
 question. But, quoth Buckley, "I don't understand you." After one or two 
 repetitions Mr. Buckley candidly and calmly admitted that he " could not 
 tell." Then he said, in reply to Sir Charles's questions, that until early last 
 month he had had no communication whatever with any one on the subject of 
 this trial. He voluntarily offered information, and the offer was made to the 
 resident magistrate, Mr. Cecil Roche, by letter, through the post, and Mr. Roche, 
 instead of replying by letter, sent Sergeant Clarke to interview the supposed 
 ex-Fenian and would-be murderer. It was at first understood that never before 
 had Buckley had communications with the police ; but he now confessed that 
 he had been in communication with the police in the summer of 1882 — not 
 earlier ; in June, he said. His attempt on Mr. Roche's life was made in May, 
 1882. The police-constable with whom he was in secret communication in 
 1882 was Sergeant Clarke. When Sir Charles Russell asked why he put 
 himself into communication with the police in 1882, he answered that it was 
 because he wished to divert police suspicion from himself as a man who had 
 tried to murder Mr. Roche ; to be regarded by the police as their friend. Here 
 the witness laughed, as if at his own cleverness. 
 
 "Don't laugh, sir," exclaimed Sir Charles Russell, sternly; "this is no 
 laughing matter." " I wasn't laughing," Buckley retorted, coolly. As to the 
 persons who have already been mentioned in the description, he adhered to 
 his statement that they were leaguers. He referred to them as leaguers 
 individually. It did not appear that he meant to say that the leaguers as a 
 local organization — that the League as a responsible body — had anything to do 
 with the attempted outrages. But as to the attempted outrages, "What," 
 Sir Charles Russell asked, with a puzzled expression, " did you want to escape 
 from?" (It will be remembered that after the Roche affair Buckley was 
 merely bound over to keep the peace for twelve months.) "To escape for 
 having tried to shoot Roche," was the reply. 
 
 Vet Sir Charles was anything but satisfied with the reply. " Did you mean 
 deliberately to kill that man ? " he asked. " Certainly I did," was the answer, 
 "It was a genuine attempt at murder?" "Yes." Mr. Buckley stoutly 
 denied that it was a bogus attempt. He also denied the truth of a story about 
 ■his having broken open his mother's box to steal money from it, and of his 
 having beaten her because he found none. 
 
 One of his statements to Mr. Reid, who cross-examined him after Sir 
 Charles Russell sat down, caused some amusement. In 1885 Buckley was 
 put into Holloway Gaol for having assaulted a policeman, and he assaulted the 
 policeman in order that he might disabuse his Irish fellow-countrymen in 
 Marylebone and elsewhere of their suspicion that he was a detective. He 
 was warned that his throat might be cut, and in order to prove that he was an 
 honest man and no detective, he knocked down an innocent policeman. 
 
 Sergeant Clarke, who was in court when the examination of Buckley began, 
 and who, at Sir Charles Russell's instance, was requested to leave, was now 
 recalled. According to Clarke's evidence, it was in October, 1882 — several 
 months after Buckley was expelled from the Society — that Buckley told him 
 
86 Friday] Diary of [Dec. 14. 
 
 about the Sheehy affair. And yet nobody was tried for the Sheehy affair.- 
 How was that? Mr. Reid asked, in surprise. But Mr. Clarke could not. 
 tell why, except that the police authorities thought it best " to await events " — 
 except that to refrain from prosecuting the criminals was the most "prudent "" 
 course to adopt, from the view point of a " detective's duty" — as Mr. Clarke- 
 expressed it. At four o'clock the cross-examination of Sergeant Clarke was. 
 suspended. 
 
 THIRTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 December 14. 
 
 For a few minutes before the Commissioners entered to-day, counsel and^ 
 visitors in court were amusing themselves over a cartoon from Unit ed Ireland.. 
 The cartoon represented their lordships in process of burial under heaps- 
 of what the artist or his employers regarded as irrelevant evidence — and worse. 
 Besides this, a copy of United Ireland was under the inspection of the lawyers; 
 on both sides. 
 
 No sooner had their lordships taken their seats than the Attorney-General' 
 rose to make an application that Ivlr. William O'Brien, editor and proprietor - 
 of the paper, should be summoned to appear next Tuesday for contempt. It 
 had been already settled that the Commission should rise to-day (Friday) for 
 the Christmas recess, reassembling on the 15th of January, and this sudden: 
 application for a Tuesday sitting was the reverse of pleasant. 
 
 The Attorney-General, however, held that the offence committed by United' 
 Ireland Avas so very flagrant, and its effect in intimidating witnesses so un- 
 questionable, that proceedings should be taken against Mr. O'Brien without 
 delay. To justify this application, wSir Richard read the whole of an article • 
 from the current number of United Ireland, in which article both the general 
 character of The Times evidence and of certain of The Times witnesses was ■ 
 described in anything but flattering terms. 
 
 Here are some extracts from the article which Sir Richard Webster 
 read out in court : — 
 
 The time is come for very plain speaking on the subject of the Forgeries Commission. , 
 which has now been sitting for twent^'-seven days in London without getting one inch nearer 
 to the subject which the public understands it was specifically appointed to investigate. So • 
 far the evidence has been a meaningless parade of eight-year-old outrages, from all participa- 
 tion in which the victims themselves examined for the "forger" concur in emphatically • 
 exonerating the League. The court has been cumbered with files of old newspapers, and 
 stunned with the opinions of policemen, land-grabbers, evictors, and of one tuft -hunting 
 Catholic clerg}-man (thank God there is but one in all Ireland to be found in such company)) 
 as to the condition of the country- and its causes. True, the waste of time has been in some 
 measure redeemed by an open exposure of the methods by which the " Forger" and the 
 Government combmed are desperately struggling to escape from the terrible mess in which 
 they have landed themselves. We have no intention of waiting till the " Forger " gives leave.: 
 to speak. With all respect for the Court, we do not care twopence for the opinion of the 
 three judges specially selected, in the teeth of justly indignant Liberal protest, by the • 
 " Forgers " friends and accomplices. Assuming — and it is a large assumption in the judges' 
 favour — that the Coercion Government which specially selected them for their partiality were : 
 deceived, their judgment is still beside the question. This is not a matter of judicial decision 
 at all, but of intelligent public opinion. 
 
 United Ireland then proceeded to say that the public want to have the 
 vital facts extracted from " the mass of rubbish " in which The Times 
 "would hide them;" and that the vital question was whether or not 
 the letters attributed to Tvlr. Parnell were forgeries. Even INIr. Chamberlainj , 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 14. 87 
 
 continued United Ireland, admitted that if the letters were proved to be 
 forgeries, the public would care very little for the rest of the charges and 
 allegations. 
 
 If these letters are genuine, on the other hand, no further charge is needed to damn the 
 character and career of the Irish leader. The Commission has now been sitting, with brief 
 intermission, for some months, and it has never been allo%\ed even to approach the one subject 
 which the pubhc regards with intensest interest, and on which Mr. Parnell has a right to claim 
 immediate investigation and prompt decision. 
 
 Instead of going straight to the point, said United Ireland, The Times 
 took to dirt-throwing ; and then United Ireland quoted the boy informer 
 Walsh as an example of a hostile witness — repeating Walsh's own confessions 
 of his having embezzled League money, stolen money from another Irish 
 organization, and swindled two insurance companies by which he was em- 
 ployed. After a sentence or two about the "hoax jDlayed off" on The Times 
 by the practical joker Patrick Molloy, United Ireland wound up with an 
 appeal for prompt inquiry into the real point at issue : — 
 
 We desire a cheaper, more sudden, definite, and more overwhelming exposure. The policy 
 of vague malignity and shameless evasion must not last for ever. The country, as well as the 
 accused, is entitled to call on the Court to compel the " Forger " to come to the point. It is 
 about time. 
 
 As soon as the Attorney-General was done with his reading, Mr. Reid 
 stood up to make a similar application against Mr. Brodrick, the "Warden 
 of Merton College, Oxford, on account of an extraordinary statement of his to 
 which a correspondent has recently called attention in The Daily Nezos. Mr. 
 Reid declared that, speaking for himself personally, he would have preferred 
 to leave all such unfair comments — whether in the Press or elsewhere — to the 
 contempt they deserved, the contempt of all honest men. Newspapers on 
 both sides were, Mr. Reid said, guilty of making unjustifiable comments. He 
 denounced such comments as vulgarities, and the Warden of INIerton's 
 comments, reported by The Times, as the worst of them. Mr. Reid was not 
 questioning the propriety of the Attorney-General's application ; but such an 
 application having been made, he considered it his duty to ask that Mr. 
 Brodrick, of INIerton College, Oxford, should be summoned to appear before 
 their lordships. The offence, ]Mr. Reid argued, was aggravated by the fact 
 that the paper in which Mr. Brodrick's remarks were pubhshed, namely. The 
 Times, was one of the parties in the present trial. The gist of the matter as 
 regards Oxford was this — there was in Oxford a branch of the National League. 
 Of this branch Mr. Henry George and Mr. Michael Davitt had been guests. 
 And referring to this Oxonian club or branch the Warden of Merton declared 
 that he would not be surprised if it should invite even the Whitechapel 
 murderer — supposing he were found out. 
 
 The moment Mr. Reid uttered his expressions about unfair comments, Sir 
 James Hannen made a sudden and emphatic interruption. Frowning and 
 striking the desk with his hand, he exclaimed in a tone of great severity, " If 
 it were in my power I would this instant throw up the Commission on 
 account of these interferences. But we are here to discharge duties imposed 
 upon us by Act of Parliament. I cannot get rid of this duty — I am tied to the 
 stake." After a few minutes' consultation between their lordships it was decided 
 that steps should be taken to secure the attendance of Mr. O'Brien at court to- 
 morrow—Mr. Reid saying he felt sure that if Mr. O'Brien was within reach he 
 would present himself without fail. Later in the day, however, intimation was 
 received that Mr. O'Brien had left for Ireland, where he was to attend a public 
 meeting. And as it was impossible that he could return to London by the 
 hour appointed, it was decided, when the Court rose at four o'clock, that 
 Mr. O'Brien's case should be heard after the Christmas recess. 
 
8S Friday] Diary of [Dec. 14. 
 
 Thomas O'Connor, the informer whose cross-examination was postponed 
 some days ago, was now recalled. Looking ill and feeble, O'Connor was 
 requested to sit down. Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, he repeated 
 many of his former statements, such as that in December, i8So, he became a 
 member of the Land League " Inner Circle." This " Inner Circle " was, as 
 he said in his former examination, the body charged with carrying out criminal 
 resolutions of the open body. The Castleisland branch was formed in October 
 or November, 1880 ; in a week or two after that, O'Connor became an 
 ordinary member of it ; and in a week or two more, one of its secret agents, or 
 " Boys." 
 
 O'Connor, replying to Sir Charles, was "quite sure" that until the time 
 he became an Inner Circle "Boy" he had taken no part in outrages. His 
 first exploit was the part he took in the reinstatement of a certain Mrs. Iloran 
 to a farm from which she had been removed. 
 
 The Land League was suppressed in October, 1881, but, in reply to 
 Sir Charles Russell, the informer maintained that the League continued to 
 meet all the same — secretly, of course — in the secretary's house, and the house 
 of some other leaguer, w^hose name he mentioned. " \Yas it not the Ladies' 
 League?" Sir Charles asked; but the witness adhered to his assertion. 
 However, the witness was totally at a loss as to dates. And when asked 
 when the League meeting was held after which an outrage upon a man named 
 Cullatty followed, he could not tell. He declared that the priest, Father 
 Gallagher, was present at it, and yet he forgot where the meeting was held and 
 when. 
 
 And now came the most interesting part of the cross-examination. In his 
 examination-in-chief by the Attorney-General, O'Connor said that in the 
 spring of 1 88 1 he had met Mr. T. Harrington at a place called Curragh, near 
 Castleisland, county Kerry, and that Mr. Harrington there and then requested 
 O'Connor and his two confederates to procure votes by force — promising them 
 money for their services. The election in question was an election for the 
 local board of guardians, and, according to the informer's story, ]\Ir. 
 Harrington observed — in the street — that he would rather lose two hundred 
 pounds than that the landlords' candidate Burke should beat the popular 
 candidate McSweeney. Here, again, the informer, when questioned by Sir 
 Charles, was greatly at a loss for dates, while as to many other details which it 
 would have been convenient to know, his memory was at fault. Of the two 
 men who were with him when Mr. Harrington accosted them, one had been 
 dead for years, and the other had been abroad for years. These two men 
 were brothers of the name of Rossnan. 
 
 Nor, again, could the informer tell Sir Charles the name of any one who had 
 seen him and his two companions talking to Mr. Harrington in the public 
 street. 
 
 But in a minute he corrected himself by saying he thought the landlords' 
 candidate saw them. The informer, questioned by Sir Charles, adhered 
 to his first statement as to what ]\Ir. Harrington had said — namely, that they 
 were to visit the voters at night, not to " hurt " anyone, but to extort promises 
 from them, and to abstain from drink lest they should do " something foolish." 
 Then the informer gave some uninteresting details as to his midnight visita- 
 tions, to extort votes — betraying his usual uncertainty about time. Nor was 
 he sure about the date on which he and one of his two confederates went 
 to Tralee to ask Mr. Harrington for their reward ; nor did he remember 
 what the place was where he found Mr. Harrington ; nor could he name any- 
 one who had seen him in the town of Tralee ; nor could he remember exactly 
 what he did with the money when he did get it — nor, at first, w-hat kind of 
 money it was, gold or notes ; though he finally stated the money was in notes. 
 However, he repeated his former story, that when Mr. Harrington was asked 
 
^Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 14. 89 
 
 for the money, J\lr. Harrington told him and his friend to be off, told them he 
 had never promised them anything, told them he was " ashamed of them " — 
 but assured them, at last, that somebody would be sent with the money to 
 Castleisland. 
 
 Well, some days after the (alleged) Tralee visit somebody did appear 
 at Castleisland, said the informer. At first he spoke as if he meant to say that 
 the mysterious stranger came two days after the Tralee interview. But in a 
 moment or two he said it might have been nine days after. And this mysterious 
 stranger gave the couple £'j between them ; and O'Connor never saw the 
 witness before or since, nor did he know anything about him, nor did 
 the mysterious stranger ask for a receipt or acknowledgment of any sort ; nor, 
 lastly, did O'Connor recollect where he changed his notes — perhaps, he 
 thought, it might have been at the National Bank of Ireland. 
 
 Then came a very important part in Sir Charles Russell's cross-examination. 
 In his statement to the Attorney-General, the witness said that in February, 
 1886, his brother received two letters from Mr. T. Harrington— one an 
 official letter, on the official paper of the National League, and the other a 
 private one, on plain paper. The official one, he said, condemned the 
 lawlessness of Castleisland ; the private one did the reverse. According to the 
 informer, the official one was meant to hoodwink the world ; the private one to 
 encourage the "Boys." The informer stated that he had read them both, 
 searched for them afterwards, and, not finding them, concluded they had been 
 destroyed. But here the informer's memory again proved somewhat weak 
 He could not remember whether he himself had opened the letters. He 
 " thought " he saw them on his brother's desk, and that he read them there. 
 But now the letter which the witness supposed to have been destroyed was, to 
 his great surprise, produced, and Sir Charles Russell read it. 
 
 At the last meeting of the Organizing Committee of the League I laid before them your 
 appUcation on behalf of the evicted tenants Mary Russell, Mary Butler, and Mary Riordan. 
 I regret to say that the Organizing Committee found themselves compelled to refuse grants, 
 owing to the very disturbed and lawless state of the county of Kern,' at the present time. 
 The committee decided upon sending no grants to those districts where continual disturbances 
 had been kept up. I don't wish you to consider that they believe the branches of the 
 National League in any way associated with lawless outrages. They wish to save the general 
 organization from even the suspicion of sending funds to places where outrages of this kind 
 have been encouraged ; and they regard this step as necessary for the safety and character of 
 the organization at the present time, and have directed me to communicate their views to the 
 secretaries who have made these applications. —Yours truly, T. Harrington. 
 
 The letter was dated February 15, 1886. As for the alleged private letter, 
 Sir Charles Russell, pausing, asked him : " Now, O'Connor, did you ever look 
 for that at all ? "emphasizing the last two words. " I did," the witness replied, 
 after a little hesitation. And then followed answers such as these : "I won't 
 swear I opened the letters." " I couldn't swear I did." " I can't remember 
 if my brother gave me them." " I think I saw them on my brother's desk." 
 
 Sir Charles Russell and O'Connor gazed steadily at each other, as the 
 former asked him whether any person or persons had requested him to say 
 *' queer things " about the Irish members. Instead of answering at once, the 
 informer looked " hard " at his questioner. "Now, take care, O'Connor," 
 said Sir Charles, in a low voice, leaning his elbow on his knee. Sir Charles 
 Russell led up to this question by inquiries as to the informer's past relations 
 with the police — eliciting from him admissions to the effect that he had in 
 September, 1886, received £2, from a police-inspector for information, and 
 shillings, at odd times, from another police-officer, "for a drink." But the 
 witness denied that he either expected or desired remuneration, beyond the 
 travelling expenses to London, for his services as a Times witness. His 
 only motive was to help "banish the hell upon earth round my district," 
 at which declaration Sir Charles Russell nodded his head approvingly. 
 
90 Friday] Diary of [Dec. i^^ 
 
 Did Mr. Walker, one of The Tivics agents, ask him to say anything incrimi- 
 nating the Irish popular leaders? "No," the witness replied, "I was- 
 only asked to tell everything I knew." It was then that Sir Charles,., 
 lowering his voice, looking steadily at the witness and warning him, "Now,, 
 take care, O'Connor " — put the above-mentioned question about being requested 
 to say " queer things." 
 
 After a little space O'Connor muttered, " Well, I understood he forced 
 me rather hard." "Was that to fix criminality on some of the Irish- 
 members?" "I said I wanted to get out of the thing altogether." "Was 
 Mr. Harrington the only member named by Mr. Walker ? " "I think so,"' 
 said O'Connor, somewhat abruptly. 
 
 " Is that your handwriting, sir ?" exclaimed Sir Charles Russell — " look at 
 the signature only; don't read the letter, sir." (O'Connor, in spite of the • 
 order not to read it, was reading it as fast as he could.) " Is that your hand- 
 writing?" " I don't know ; another person might have written it." " Have 
 you any doubt it is yours?" "It is very like it, but I am not accus- 
 tomed ." "Have you any doubt, sir?" again Sir Charles exclaimed,. 
 
 almost angrily. And then the answer came, " I have not." " Give me the : 
 letter" — and then Sir Charles Russell read it aloud : — 
 
 London, Dec. 3, 1888. 
 Dear Pat, — I am here in London since j-esterday morning. I was in Dublin two daj^s. . 
 I have got myself summoned for The Times. I thought I could make a few pounds in 
 the transaction, but I find I cannot unless I would swear quare things. I am afraid: 
 they will send me to gaol or at least give me nothing to carry me home. I would 
 not bother with it at all, but m^^ health was verj- bad when I was at home, and I thought I 
 would take a short voyage and see the doctor at their expense— (laughter)— but, instead of" 
 that doing me any good, it has made me worse a little. I will be examined to-morrow 
 (Tuesday), the 4th. Get some daily paper — Tlie Freeman — and see how it will be on it. Yoa " 
 need not mind replying to this, as I leave this house as soon as I am examined, which wjll. 
 not be longer than to-morrow (Tuesday-). Whichever way it will end do not blame me for it. 
 I thought to do some good, but I fear I cannot, but harm. Tell Martin to have 30s. out of ' 
 the bank, as I fear I will have to send for the costs, if he has nothing after the fair, i 
 am not needing it, but I am afraid I may. I will write again to-morrow night, or at furthest on 
 Wednesday, if I am alive and at liberty-. — Your unfortunate brother, Thomas O'Connor. 
 
 The reading of the letter produced a great impression in court. After a . 
 moment or two's pause, the Attorney-General rose to state that the witness 
 had received, since the date of his examination-in-chief, telegrams from his 
 friends in Ireland, and a visit h-om one of his brothers named JNIartin. He : 
 proposed to read the telegrams. Sir Charles Russell objected on one ground, . 
 among others, that there was no proof as to w^ho wrote the telegrams. But : 
 the President overruled him. And Sir Richard Webster read the first 
 telegram, w^hich was dated 7th of December, and addressed to Thomas O'Connor- 
 — "Letter received. Family and friends will die of shame. Contradict alL 
 evidence in cross-examination, and all is well. Martin left to-day to see you. 
 Meet him. Reply." The other telegram read by the Attorney-General w^as. 
 received by the witness that morning. Here it is : — 
 
 " Costs will be sent to you immediatelj- after the trial. Do as 3-ou promised me. Admit 
 being terrified with imprisonment at their hands unless you swore to your statement. The- 
 law cannot touch you there when you tell the truth. Be cheerful. Reply immediately.- 
 Telegraph. Address ]\Iartin, care of Thomas Callagher, Ballymail, Tralee." (To the witness) > 
 — Is that the same brother who came to you? — I understand it is. 
 
 "There is one more question I wish to ask you," said Sir Richard Webster.. 
 " Are the answers you have given Sir Charles Russell to-day respecting what, 
 happened in 1 880-1-2 true? " " As far as I can remember they are," was the 
 reply, and O'Connor, veiy pale and bent with weakness, half-shambled half- 
 tottered out of the witness-box. 
 
 The rest of the sitting was occupied with the examination of seven witnesses. . 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Dec. 14. 91 
 
 The general character of their evidence may be given briefly. All the de- 
 positions in chief had this in common, that they were meant to prove that the 
 League, as the League, was directly responsible for boycotting and other 
 forms of intimidation. The first of the seven said he had been a Land 
 Leaguer and then a National Leaguer for years, and that in 1 88 1-2 the chief 
 business of the League was to pass resolutions intimidating tenants who had 
 incurred its displeasure. He said that the people obeyed the League from fear 
 of the consequences of refusal. But he frankly admitted to Mr. Davitt that 
 the same people were more afraid of eviction than of the League. At the end 
 of his cross-examination he became veiy impatient. " Ach," he said, " I know- 
 nothing at all, at all." In that case, said Mr. Lockwood, I need not trouble 
 you with any questions. 
 
 Another witness, Moroney, was so voluble, that both sides appeared to 
 be only too glad to get rid of him. He tossed his head, threw his arms 
 about, nodded at the bench, nodded at counsel, laughed, and laughed again 
 as he described how the moonlightersg ave him a " shtab with a bagnet " 
 (bayonet), ^^^lat did they "shtab" him for? He did not know ; but they - 
 called him a " blackg}'ard." Mike Moroney had another fit of laughter, 
 as if the vagueness of the charge of being a blackguard was too much_ 
 for him. He would have gone on for an hour. But he was sent out of his box 
 without any cross-examination. 
 
 Poor old Hannah Connell was amusing in a somewhat different way. She 
 was one of the two heroines of the Milltown Malbay boycott — heroine and 
 victim. She thought she was "fifty," but the universal opinion was that she 
 was eighty if she was a day. She was a little, bright-eyed, red-faced woman, 
 in a white apron, a red gown, and a dark shawl, which she wore — in Irish 
 fashion — over her head. Her voice was an inaudible, feeble twitter ; but the 
 speed she went at ! Even Sir James Hannen gave up his attempt to follow 
 her. She became hoarse. The court officer politely handed her a tumbler, 
 half full. She tasted, and then she put the tumbler down. They might have 
 given her a more hospitable reception than that. At least that was the thought 
 which crossed one's mind at the moment. Mr. Lockwood must have thought 
 the same thing when, five minutes after, poor Mrs. Connell tried the tumbler 
 again. " I'm afraid that's only water," quoth ]\Ir. Lockwood. 
 
 This Avas too much for Sir Richard Webster. Sir Richard protested, and 
 rather indignantly too. ^Yhereupon JNIr. Lockwood, turning round, said he 
 was " soriy for hurting the Attorney-General's feelings." This assurance failed 
 to soothe Sir Richard, who muttered something inaudibly. "Humbug," 
 grumbled Mr. Lockwood, glancing sideways at the Attorney-General. 
 
 Mrs. Connell's complaint was that she had been boycotted for taking an 
 evicted farm, so that she could buy no food anywhere. She complained 
 grievously of the Rev. Father Wliite, president of the League, who always told 
 her " he knew nothing about " the boycott. Her son, who was somewhat 
 uncertain about his age, but who, on reflection, stated that he was nineteen 
 at the time of the Crimean war, generally corroborated his mother's story. The 
 interesting part of this case was its testimony to the fact that the police went 
 round the shops with Mrs. Connell in order to get up prosecutions, for 
 boycotting, against the shopkeepers. At five minutes to four o'clock the Court 
 rose. Sir James Hannen announced that it would meet again on the fifteenth 
 day of the new year. 
 
■^2 Tuesday] Diary of [Jan, 15. 
 
 THIRTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 January 15, 1SS9. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell opened to-day's proceedings with an application for 
 an order to the proprietor of T/ie PVorcester Daily Times to appear before 
 their lordships " on the charge of contempt of Court" ; the alleged contempt 
 being the publication of an article extracts from which were read by Sir 
 Charles, and in which certain strong statements were made in reference to Mr. 
 Gladstone's review, in The AHneteeiith Century, on a recently published, and 
 now well known, life of O'Connell. These applications, said Sir James 
 Hannen, are even more serious, distressing, and burdensome than the inquiry 
 itself. After a hurried consultation between their lordships, the President 
 announced that they reserved judgment. 
 
 Then Sir Richard Webster rose. But he had little to add to what he had 
 said a month ago on Mr. \Yilliam O'Brien and United Ireland. It was, 
 indeed, unnecessaiy for him to say much ; for in front of him sat the Irish 
 people's William, ready to accept full responsibility for all that had appeared 
 in his paper, and to defend or explain the article. And no sooner had Sir 
 Richard resumed his place than the editor of United Ireland was on his feet, 
 bolt upright, tightly buttoned, straight as a ramrod, and with his hands folded 
 behind his back. The Court was in for a political speech. " H'sh-sh," went 
 the round of the court, and "the public" down below and the ladies in the 
 galleries bent forward in an attitude of expectancy. Some curious males had 
 their palms at their ears ; for ]Mr. O'Brien was at first inaudible — though 
 before he reached the end of his speech his voice resounded pretty much as it 
 does from Irish platforms and in the House of Commons. He spoke for 
 thirty-five minutes. After a few introductory disclaimers of any intention 
 to reflect upon their lordships' conduct of the investigation, Mr. O'Brien 
 went straight to the point of his speech, that this was less a judicial inquiry 
 than a parliamentary and political inquiry. " In fact," said ^Ir. O'Brien, in 
 his most candid manner, " the investigation differs from one by a Parliamentary 
 Committee simply in its being conducted by judges." That being the case, he 
 maintained that he was fully entitled to comment in public upon what he held 
 to be The Times' unfair way of conducting their part of the case. United 
 Ireland, he maintained, attacked, not the Judge-Commissioners, but The 
 Times counsel. Mr. O'Brien denounced in his most emphatic style The Times' 
 continued publication, not merely of its pamphlet " Parnellism and Crime," 
 but also of a separate work, embodying the Attorney General's speech and the 
 evidence given before the Commission, and published under the tide " Parnell- 
 isni and Crime," just as if it were an edition or continuation of the work 
 commonly known by that name. 
 
 T venture (said Mr. O'Brien) to bring before your lordships the hardships in which we are 
 placed. The pamphlet entitled " Parnellism and Crime" — concerning which your lordships 
 are solemnly inquiring whether it contains one tittle of truth — that pamphlet is being openly 
 advertised and sold by tens of thousands in England ever\- day. That pamphlet was 
 originallj- published before these proceedings commenced. I hold in mj- hand, however, and 
 shall be pleased to pass it up if 3-our lordships will kindly look at it, a book of nearly four 
 hundred pages which has been published by the publishers of The T2/;!Cs since these pro- 
 ceedings commenced. Its title is "Parnellism and Crime. — Special Commission. — Part L," 
 as if this were really- an official message almost from the Court to the country. That book is 
 packed with the ex parte statements of the Attorney-General, the chief counsel for TJie Times 
 in this case, disseminating the most atrocious charges, 400 pages of them, against us, and 
 disseminating them almost with the imprimatur, as it were, of the Court, as if they were 
 matters already proved and established. So they send their poison day after day into 
 hundreds of places, knowing that for months, or perhaps ^-ears, we shall not have the 
 opportunity in court of counteracting their horrible allegations. These are the persons who 
 -have the audacity to come into this court and apply for punishment against me, one of the 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Jan. 15. 93 
 
 accused persons, as well as a public journalist, a man against whom the most atrocious 
 charges are le^•elled. They have the audacitjr to ask for my punishment because I have in 
 one leading article done my best to counteract the effect of all the frightful poison they are 
 disseminating against us. There are other minor persons attacking us, so that wherever we 
 go in England we see ourselves depicted in lithographed pictures as taking part in or insti- 
 gating abominable crimes. But that is done bj^ newspapers not so influential as The Times. 
 Such papers hope by their insignificance to escape notice, and if they do not escape notice, 
 but get brought into court, the}" will doubtless be ready to sneak out with a most sincere 
 apologj-. I quote these things to show that any rigid enforcement of the law of contempt 
 would have and must ha^■e a necessarily one-sided effect, because the representatives of the 
 Irish people will have to remain exposed to that constant, habitual drip, drip of defamatory 
 matter throughout England ; while our mouths are to be closed if we protest against the 
 means employed against us. 
 
 The foregoing passage Avas delivered by Mr. O'Brien with all his character- 
 istic energy. In pronouncing the word "audacity" his voice grew almost 
 hoarse with indignation, and he turned round with a gesture of scorn and 
 contempt to where The Ti?nes manager and solicitors were seated, close to his 
 friend ]Mr. Davitt. Holding a copy of United Ireland in his hand, Mr. 
 O'Brien proceeded : 
 
 Fighting as we are against tremendous odds, are thej' still to carry on their defamation of 
 us, and are we still to remain tongue-tied ? I wish it to be distinctly understood that I have 
 not for a moment claimed an^- right to question your lordships' rulings as to what is or is not 
 admissible as evidence. What I do most respectfully claim in this article is that we are 
 entitled in the fullest manner to criticise the dilatory tactics of The Times in reference to the 
 substantial allegation as the result of which we are loaded with the enormous expense and 
 worrj- of this Commission. I respectfullj- submit that we are entitled to comment on what 
 this article calls the scandalous absence of material evidence and the still more scandalous 
 manner in which it was supplied, and I submit to your lordships we were perfectly warranted 
 so long as we were treated as we were hy the other side, in not keeping silence and in not 
 remaining tongue-tied as to the means thej- were employing against us. We court and 
 challenge inquiry into the horrible accusations which The Times allege they can prove under 
 the hand of our own leader, and we are here to meet that allegation in an}^ tangible shape or 
 form. But instead of having the opportunity of meeting the question whether we are a gang 
 of secret, miserable, and dastardly conspirators ; and instead of The Times producing the 
 proof they said they have, and which they ought to have had before they made such terrible 
 charges, here we are month after month incurring frightful expense, while the prosecution 
 have not touched on the one allegation which, if true, would render the rest of the inquiry 
 utterly superfluous, because there is not a man in the party who does not acknowledge 
 himself to be bound by every act of our leader. 
 
 Mr. W. O'Brien declared that what the public were now told through The 
 Times witnesses and counsel was not what the public wanted to hear. The 
 pubhc, said he, with an expression of contempt — and again turning in the 
 direction of The Times manager and Sir Richard Webster — expected some- 
 thing very different to a summary of newspaper files extending over ten years. 
 " If," said he, "if we did not protest against this kind of thing we should be 
 guilty of cowardice and criminality. The article in question was merely 
 intended to set us right and keep us right with the public" — whom the 
 prosecution was leading away from the point at issue ; that, repeated Mr. 
 O'Brien, was the sole object of the article, and, he remarked, "it would be 
 absurdly unnecessary for me to say that the article was not intended to sway 
 the judgment of this Court." He continued : 
 
 There is absolutely no way of ending the period of suspense so long as our opponents are 
 to be at liberty to circulate these abominable pamphlets against us, taking for granted in 
 ever^-thing that they have established their case against us ; while we are debarred the right 
 of answer or comment. Looking over the article in its entirety, in substance and effect I am 
 sorry to say I cannot find anything for which I can express honest regret, or anything which 
 it may not be my solemn duty to repeat. 
 
 Then came the case of Mr. Brodrick, the Warden of Merton College. It 
 was very speedily disposed of. Mr. Brodrick was in court, seated among the 
 juniors. The Hon. A. Lyttelton appeared for him. Mr. Lyttelton read out a 
 long affidavit the gist of which was that in his collocation of Jack the Ripper 
 
^94 Tuesday] Diary of [Ji^^i- 15. 
 
 with the Irish leaders, Mr. Brodrick had only been amusing his academic 
 audience at Oxford. In his affidavit Mr. Brodrick disclaimed all intention of 
 saying anything in contempt of Court. In his opening remarks Mr. Lyttelton 
 •mildly ridiculed Mr. Reid for having taken Islx. Brodrick's speech so seriously. 
 But Scotchmen, suggested Mr. Lyttelton, are serious persons. However, 
 Mr. Reid, when his turn came to speak, repaid Mr. Lyttelton with interest. 
 Mr. Ried— with an air of mingled surprise and compassion — expressed the 
 hope that the Warden's speech was not an example of English humour, 
 "humour verified by affidavit." No one would have guessed that the 
 Warden of Merton had been talking humour, unless one had been told so. 
 Mr. Reid, being a Scotchman, failed to detect any humour in the Warden's 
 collocation of Jack the Rippar with Mr. Davitt. After a little wrangling 
 between counsel, Sir James Hannen intervened. He observed briefly that 
 after Mr. Brodrick's assurance as to the real motive and intention of his speech 
 -at Oxford, the Court would take no further notice of the case. And so Mr. 
 Brodrick, bowing to the President, left the court. 
 
 Major Tanner, a brother of Dr. Tanner, was the first witness called. He 
 ■came to prove intimidation by the League. Tvlajor Tanner is shortish and 
 thickset, like his renowned brother. The eyes, nose, mouth, and chin also 
 indicate the family relationship. Like the doctor, Major Tanner is prompt and 
 decisive. But in other respects there is a startling contrast between the Major's 
 manner and that of the M.P. — at any rate, of the M.P. when in a state of 
 volcanic activity " in his place" in the House of Commons. Major Tanner's 
 manner is quiet and business-like. There in the witness-box stood Major 
 Tanner testifying against the mischief of the political organization of which 
 his brother was a member. Major Tanner spoke from his experience as a land 
 agent. He illustrated the greatness of the change introduced, in his estima- 
 tion, by the League, by saying that whereas in the year 1879, before the 
 League was started, the arrears on one of his estates amounted to only £2, los.,' 
 they rose to ^^700 in 188 1, after the League was established in his district. He 
 -said, and he repeated his statement, that tenants had often asked him to 
 wait for his rent until " they got leave from the League to pay." Evictions, 
 ■he declared, had frequently had the effect of extorting payment from tenants 
 who had previously explained they had no money. 
 
 He told a story about an interview he had in his own room with twenty-four 
 tenants. " I asked them why they woyld not pay. One of them replied that 
 when he came up that morning he saw an effigy with a placard to the effect 
 that any tenant who paid would be killed in the same way." Tenants who 
 had paid him had sometimes asked him in secret to prosecute them — in order 
 to hoodwink the leaguers. Said he, a tenant who would behave politely to 
 me when I was alone, would behave rudely when other tenants were at hand. 
 
 Major Tanner, when cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, showed that 
 his knowledge of his native country was somewhat limited. He applied the 
 name "conventions" to Land League meetings assembled for the purpose of 
 •demonstrating against landlord sales of tenant interests. Once when Major 
 Tanner wandered off into what Sir Charles regarded as irrelevant matters — 
 and perhaps obstructive — Sir Charles impatiently interrupted him with a 
 "Never mind that, I want to get on. Dr. Tanner." The substitution of 
 "Doctor" for "Major" caused an explosion of laughter, in which the 
 'obstructive Major — as his cross-examiner apparently deemed him — ^joined, 
 though rather reluctantly. 
 
 Though Major Tanner considered the League to be the source of the woes 
 ■of Tipperary, he was obliged to admit that there had been murders in that 
 county in 1875-6-7, and that he could not quote a single case of murder in it 
 ;since 1879. The ^lajor showed that he was not one of those who thought the 
 -Irish tenants entitled to any exceptional consideration during the starvation 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Counnission. [J cm. 15. 95 
 
 •and misery of 1879. He had given reductions; but, as he candidly and 
 •straightforwardly admitted, he did it in order to smash the League. 
 
 The rest of the sitting was occupied with the examination of a witness from 
 county Longford. He spelled his name lago. This Longford witness was a 
 short, slope-shouldered, weakish-looking man with thick red hair, little bead 
 eyes [over which the lids often closed, leaving nothing but a narrow slit], 
 scrubby moustache, and a scorched face. Mr. Atkinson conducted his exami- 
 nation-in-chief. The Longford man's story was that he had for years been a 
 member of the League; that he was even a member of the committee of the 
 League ; that he saw the League's books ; that he was present at League 
 • committee meetings, where boycottings and other outrages were officially 
 jesolved upon ; that he himself had served in outrage parties commissioned by 
 the League committee; that he had been paid for his trouble ; and that he was 
 under the impression that the money came from Dublin. One of his stories 
 was that he assisted in intimidating tenants who had lighted bonfires in honour 
 ■of a landlord whom they liked, and that the League committee arranged the 
 •business — a League committeeman firing shots among the bonfire revellers in 
 •order to frighten them. On another occasion his fellow-leaguers went dis- 
 guised to fire into a house, the owner of which lodged a policeman's son. 
 He accompanied the disguised men, and he knew that the woman into whose 
 house the shots were fired, lost her reason in consequence of her fright. But 
 the man's principal exploits appeared to have been in the window-breaking 
 line. A man was secretly sentenced by the committee to have his panes 
 smashed, because he had given testimony against the witness; and the witness 
 had the satisfaction of being entrusted with the duty of carrying out the 
 .sentence. But according to lago's testimony, the leaguers were guilty of 
 worse crimes than window smashing ; and he described how he had been 
 appointed, with other leaguers, to waylay somebody. " I gave him a sthroke," 
 said he, "he was badly wounded, and he died four days after." Gave him a 
 ■"" sthroke " — he told his story with an air of stupid indifference. 
 
 This supposed informer had clearly stated in his examination-in-chief that he 
 liad been a committeeman of the League. WTien cross-examined by Sir 
 •Charles Russell he denied this ; then he corrected himself again ; then he 
 explained that at first he had only had the entree to the committee rooms, and 
 that though he had been an ordinary member for six years or more, he had 
 been a committeeman for only six months. He was uncertain as to the exact 
 ■date of his arrival in England ; but he stated that he had been living nine 
 weeks in London ; he smashed windows because he had sworn to be " true 
 to his counthree " ; he hesitated when Sir Charles Russell asked him who 
 ..had summoned him to London, and to whom he had given information ; he 
 hummed and hawed when asked on his oath whether he had given the police 
 any information about any of his exploits except the window smashing ; he 
 -denied that he had made any statement in London, and then he said that his 
 -Statement was read over to him ; he blurted out the fact that his statement was 
 jead over to him " last night." " Were you ever a member of the League at 
 all ? " exclaimed Sir Charles Russell. Yes ; but unfortunately Mr. lago 
 -had no ticket in his possession, he had written to Ireland for his ticket, and 
 his brother replied that the ticket could not be found ; but as for this letter of 
 his brother's, why he, the ex- member, had burnt it. At ten minutes past four 
 the cross-examination of this interesting informer was suspended. 
 
96 Wednesday] Diary of \J(in. i6^. 
 
 THIRTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 January 16. 
 
 Punctually at half-past ten o'clock the Commissioners took their seats, and 
 at once the President proceeded to state what decision he and his colleagues 
 had arrived at respecting the charge of contempt of Court against Mr. William 
 O'Brien. Sir James Hannen examined, point by point, the arguments of the 
 speech in which Mr. O'Brien contended that the United Ii-eland article had 
 neither brought the writer within the charge of contempt nor exceeded the 
 limits of fair criticism. Sir James Hannen began with a flattering acknowledg- 
 ment of the "becoming" manner in which Mr. O'Brien had addressed the 
 Court. We have no reason, said Sir James, to doubt the sincerity of Mr. 
 O'Brien's explanation, or of his claim of right as a pubhc critic. To some extent 
 the President endorsed Mr. O'Brien's criticism on the conduct of The Ti7?ies 
 in publishing pamphlets and books the very titles of which amounted to a 
 judgment on the questions which their lordships were investigating. Again, Sir ■ 
 James Hannen remarked, in a kindly, sympathetic manner, that there un- 
 doubtedly was a good deal in what Mr. O'Brien had said about the political 
 associations of this trial. But, while admitting this. Sir James Hannen observed 
 — this time in a tone of severe emphasis — that ^vith political issues the Com- 
 mission had absolutely nothing to do. Sir James then proceeded to indicate 
 what he considered to be the points in which the writer of the article had ex- 
 ceeded the limits of fair journalistic discussion. But, taking all the circum- 
 stances into view. Sir James Hannen had come to the conclusion — in which his 
 colleagues had concurred with him — that any modified penalty to which Mr. . 
 O'Brien had rendered himself liable on account of the objectionable passages, 
 might well be remitted. Sir James Hannen concluded his careful and compre- 
 hensive decision with an earnest appeal to public writers to refrain from 
 everything in the shape of unfair comment on the Commission's proceedings — 
 comments which only served to lengthen the investigation and to add to the 
 Judges difficulties. It should be borne in mind that Mr. O'Brien is not the 
 WTiter of the article in question, though he has so fully accepted responsibility 
 for it. Mr. O'Brien, who was sitting in front of the bench, rose and bowed 
 respectfully. 
 
 The informer lago was then recalled, and his cross-examination was resumed 
 by Sir C. Russell. This witness, it will be remembered, professed to be an ex- 
 committeeman of the League, who, in his offtcial capacity, had often been 
 officially commissioned to perpetrate outrages. Sir Charles Russell plied lago 
 with questions intended to find out whether he was as great a rogue as he 
 said he was. lago strongly resented Sir Charles's doubts as to his rascality. 
 
 As an honest man lago claimed to be believed ; yet he perplexed hi&. 
 hearers sometimes. His memory appeared to be correcting itself, filling up its 
 past gaps, amplifying itself as he proceeded with his unpleasant autobiography. 
 He was somewhat confused in his answers to repeated questions about his com- 
 mittee membership. At one time he stated that his membership ended six 
 months ago. At another he surprised his cross-examiner with the assurance, 
 *' I am still on the committee, your honour." Mr, lago's audience laughed 
 not unnaturally at this unexpected announcement. ]Mr. lago wriggled about 
 in his box, and winked his small eyes. Then there were fresh uncertainties - 
 about that letter of his which he said yesterday he had written to his brother, 
 requesting that his card of membership should be forwarded to London. At 
 first Mr. lago left the impression upon his hearers that he had written to his 
 brother direct. He now said that he asked a policeman to communicate ort, 
 the subject with his brother. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Jcin. i6. 97 
 
 Mr. lago repeatedly excused himself for all these perplexing answers and 
 corrections of answers by saying that he was "no scholar." Not being a 
 scholar, he could not have written with his own hand to his brother ; so he 
 procured the assistance of some one from Mayo, whom he met in London, and 
 whom he had never seen before. All this was done about a week ago ; and the 
 reply which Mr. lago received from his brother, Mr. lago burnt. Then INIr. 
 lago made further revelations about his past life, from which it appeared that 
 he had been several times " run in " for assault. Again, he informed the Court 
 that he had two-and-a-half acres of land ; and in a minute or two he corrected 
 himself by saying that the land was not his, but his brother's. 
 
 lago stared in blank indignation at Sir Charles Russell when the latter 
 asked him whether there was a single man in all Longford who could believe 
 him on his oath. Then he triumphantly stated that the relieving officer of the 
 place and three publicans would believe him. In answer to Mr. Reid, he re- 
 marked that he had turned informer because " I wanted to take my head out 
 of the halter." 
 
 Mr. lago slunk out of his box and disappeared. Patrick Delaney was the 
 next name called. And after a few moments' pause "the Phoenix Park 
 criminal " appeared — not in prison dress. Delaney is over middle height, 
 stoutish in build, reddish -yellow haired, and with features which were inore of 
 a Russian than an Irish cast. He wore a short jacket of check-tweed, and a 
 big white cravat about his neck. He had come, as he said, from Mary- 
 borough Prison, Queen's County, where he is "doing" his life sentence for his 
 share in what, twice or thrice in the course of his examination, he called the 
 Phoenix Park " business." Here he was to prove, if he could, that the leaders 
 of the Land and National Leagues — Mr. Parnell, Mr. John ^ O'Connor, 
 Mr. Matt Harris, Mr. Egan, and others — were implicated up in murders 
 and conspiracies for Irish independence ; that Nationalists, Leaguers, 
 Fenians, Invincibles were to a sufficient extent, one party under different 
 names. 
 
 Delaney was in many ways an interesting personage as he stood erect in his 
 box, quite composedly, with some hundred pairs of eyes fixed curiously upon 
 him. His brother was one of those who were hanged for the Phoenix Park 
 crime. Pat Delaney himself would have been hanged, but, as he said, in his 
 cool, but confused, way, ' ' I pleaded guilty, and so my sentence was changed 
 from execution to life." 
 
 A bad career was Pat Delaney's, even before the Phoenix Park "business.'* 
 " In my young days," said he, "I got five years for highway robbery." He 
 looked not in the shghtest degree abashed when he said that. _ By his young 
 days he meant when he was about seventeen years old. He is now thirty- 
 six. He looks strong and healthy. The regularity of prison discipline — • 
 regular meals, freedom from worry, steady work, and a free residence 
 under strict sanitary supervision — have improved Pat Delaney. In health 
 and comfort, and, really, in apparent contentment with his lot, Mr. Delaney 
 seemed to have the advantage over millions of his poor and honest fellow- 
 creatures who were struggling for existence outside gaol walls. It might have 
 been noticed that Mr. Delaney had a pleasant voice, much pleasanter than 
 his face. 
 
 The first thing Delaney did after his release from gaol in 1876 was to join the 
 Fenians. He jumped out of gaol into the " Brotherhood." And he remained 
 a Fenian until the time of his arrest in November, 18S2. He joined the 
 Brotherhv. od in Dublin, where the Fenian leaders at that time (1876) were. 
 Patrick Egan, John Macalister, John Leary, and Donovan constituted, he said,, 
 the "Executive Council." But besides these men, there were "organizers" 
 from America and elsewhere. All these men used to meet at the Council in 
 Dublin, together with James and Toe Mullett, Daniel Delaney (the witness's 
 
 8 
 
gS Wednesday] Diary of [Jan. i6. 
 
 brother), James Carey, James Elmore, and John Devoy. General Millen, 
 the American, was, said the witness, entrusted with the duty of inspecting the 
 secret military organization of the Fenian Brotherhood. 
 
 Having described a Fenian "centre," Delaney gave an account of the 
 first Land League meeting held in the Rotunda, Dublin, in 1879. All the 
 members of the Fenian circles were invited by their respective centres to be 
 present at the meeting for the purpose of supporting the Land Leaguers. Pat 
 Egan, who, according to Delaney, was both a Fenian and treasurer of the new 
 Land League, was at the meeting. And so, he thought, were ]Mr. Biggar, Mr. 
 Matt. Harris, Mr. Michael Davitt, and Mr. Thomas Brennan. After the meet- 
 ing, continued Delaney, we Fenians received orders from our superiors (centres) 
 not to oppose the new organization called the Land League, but to support it. 
 The general drift of this part of Delaney's evidence was that leaguers and 
 Fenians were either the same persons or that the League leaders were know- 
 ingly and deliberately associating themselves with the Fenian conspiracy. He 
 made particular mention next of P. J, Sheridan, who, he declared, was both 
 a member of the Fenian Council and a Land League organizer in the South of 
 Ireland. The short and the long of it was, according to Delaney's statement, 
 that the Land League and the Fenian Brotherhood were two distinct depart- 
 ments of one and the same organization — the League being entrusted with the 
 duty of preparing the country for the military action which the Fenian Brother- 
 hood would initiate and conduct. 
 
 But did Mr. Delaney know all this at first hand ? No. He had only been 
 told so by his superior officer or centre. In 1882, before the Phcenix Park 
 murder, Delaney himself was elevated to the rank of "centre." 
 
 Next came a long string of answers, connecting leaguers, Fenians, and invin- 
 cibles together. Mr. Matt. Harris, the renowned member for East Galway, to 
 whom Delaney was "introduced" in 1876, was the Fenian "'centre" for 
 county Galway. It was ]Mr. Matt. Harris who swore in ' ' Curley." He did not go 
 the length of calling Mr. Harrison an invincible, but only a Fenian organizer. 
 [We may explain here that by an invincible the witness meant a man sworn to 
 assist the Irish cause by assassination ; and by a Fenian, one bound only to 
 attain the same end by "open fighting."] "I became an invincible," said 
 " Mr. Delaney," and he rapidly quoted a number of invincible names — ^James 
 Mullett, James Carey, Daniel Delaney, Joe Brady, Mike Fagan, the two Han- 
 Ions, Pat Egan, Brennan, Sheridan, Frank Bryne, and Pat Molloy, the same 
 witness who lately from the witness-box declared that he had only been hoax- 
 ing Tke Times. 
 
 Delaney affirmed an identity between leaguers, Fenians, and invincibles. 
 For example, Egan the alleged invincible was Land League treasurer, and 
 Frank Bryne was secretary of the Land League in London. As he stated at a 
 later stage of his evidence, it was Mrs. Frank Bryne who carried the Phoenix 
 Park weapons from London to Dublin. As for Mr. Matt. Harris, Delaney de- 
 clared that he was present at a Dublin meeting, in 1879, of all the centres of 
 the Fenian organization in Ireland. And among these invincibles was the 
 mysterious Number One, Tynan his name was, the witness thought ; and Tynan 
 used to go about in big spectacles : " I never saw him without his spectacles. 
 He always went disguised ; I never saw him twice in the same dress." Who 
 told you, he was asked, that Mr. Matt. Harris swore Curley into the Fenian 
 brotherhood? "Curley himself," was the answer. And then he said that 
 Sheridan [describing him as a leaguer] was one of the three Fenians who intro- 
 duced the Invincible Association from America in 1881 ; that the invincibles 
 got their money from the Land League through the hands of its treasurer, 
 Egan ; that he himself, Mr. Delaney, had been " told off" to murder Mr. 
 Forster ; and that he also received instructions to assist in the assassination of 
 Mr. Burke : — 
 
Wednesday] the Pavnell Commission. [Jan. i6. 99 
 
 "We were told to meet at King's Bridge and assassinate a gentleman, but he didn't come." 
 
 Had you any part in the Phoenix Park murders ? — No. 
 
 How was that ? — I was not told to, and I didn't know until the murder had taken place. I 
 was taken by force into Phosnix Park. 
 
 Where were you at tlie time of the murder ?— Close by. 
 
 What were you dsing ? — Watching. 
 
 On the ground ?— Yes. 
 
 What communications were made to you about the murder ? — The first orders I got were to 
 meet at King's Bridge. I was then fetched from work by Timothy Kelly and the carman 
 Kavanagh. 
 
 Where were you taken to ? — To the public-house in James Street, and thence to Phcenix 
 Park. 
 
 Do you remember anything about the knives ?— Yes. James Carey had the knives hidden 
 in a dispensary he was rebuilding. He was afraid of being found out, and asked me to take 
 them to Brady, with instructions to destroy them. 
 
 Did you take them? — Yes. They were the same as Mrs. Byrne brought over. 
 
 What did j-ou do with'the knives? — Thej- were destroyed in my presence. I saw Brady 
 break the handles, and burn them and the knives. 
 
 After that, continued Delaney, "No. i " attended a meeting at which a committee was 
 formed. One of the meetings was attended by Byrne, who brought with him a large amount 
 of notes and gold, which was given to the funds of the invincibles. 
 
 According to Delaney's narrative there was to be a long series of 
 murders. Judge Lawson was to be murdered ; so were Earl Spencer, 
 and a number of policemen and detectives. And again Mr. Delaney con- 
 nected all these hideous plots directly with the Land League, by saying that 
 Byrne, who attended the secret conclave for the murder of Earl Spencer, de- 
 cided at the time that nothing would be done without Mr. Egan's "orders." 
 Finally Mr. Delaney told how Mr. Egan, the League treasurer, paid money in 
 support of the candidature of Carey for one of the Dublin wards "in the hope 
 that an invincible might become Lord Mayor of Dublin." At this odd 
 : announcement there was a burst of laughter in court. And then the Attorney- 
 General wound up his examination by producing letters with Mr. Egan's 
 alleged signature, letters forwarding, or promising, funds to Carey,5and 
 quoting Mr. Parnell's (alleged) opinion on the expenditure. The letters were 
 handed one after the other by the Attorney-General to the witness, who, knitting 
 his brows and staring hard at each, pronounced every signature to be Mr. Egan's. 
 The letters were dated from Paris. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell now asked him what his motive was for giving all that 
 information about invincibles and leaguers to the official authorities. The re- 
 ply was that he did it as soon as he learned that there was a probability of his 
 being accused of having shared in the murder of Mr. Burke. When he learned 
 this he was in prison for the Lawson " business." There it was that he "wrote 
 <lown" the "whole story from 1875 ^ntil the time of his arrest." But, he added, 
 it was only " ten days ago" that he was asked to give information before the 
 ■Commission, and he was asked by a Times agent, Mr. Shannon, who inter- 
 viewed him in Maryborough Prison. This Mr. Shannon, he imagined, must 
 have known about the deposition he made in gaol five years before. Only the 
 governor of the gaol was present, said Delaney, when Mr. Shannon was taking 
 his notes. Mr. Shannon, it seems, made him swear to the truth of his state- 
 ments. " He gave me a book. I kissed it. I didn't know what it was ; but it 
 was a book of some description." Mr. Delaney's audience laughed at this reve- 
 lation of Mr. Delaney's notions of the sacredness of what he was swearing by. 
 
 In his examination-in-chief Mr. Delaney had been declaring persistently 
 that the leaguers, Fenians, and invincibles were in accord. But he looked some- 
 vv^hat surprised when Sir Charles Russell read out aloud the Fenian proclama- 
 tion of that very period — proclamations in which the Parnellite, Constitutional, 
 Land League party were denounced as scramblers for parliamentary place and 
 power, and as deserters of the Irish cause. " Did you not know that, sir? '' 
 exclaimed Sir Charles Russell, in a sharp, severe tone. Mr. Delaney 
 Jaesitated, but said at last that he heard there was something of the sort. As 
 
100 Thursday'] Diary of [Jan. 17. 
 
 for the Rotunda meeting, he admitted that the Fenians attempted to storm the 
 platform on >vhich ]\Ir/Parnell and other prominent leaguers were standing. 
 But he added something to the effect that after the meeting the P>nians re- 
 ceived " orders " to be friendly. However, when closely pressed by Sir Charles 
 Russell, he admitted that he himself, personally, had received no such orders 
 from the three centres who promulgated them. He also confessed that he had 
 had no direct personal communication with the Fenians and leaguers whom 
 he had been accusing all along of having hatched the Invincible conspiracy. In 
 other words, as Sir Charles Russell put it, Delaney did not know personally 
 that any leaguers had had anything to do with the hatching business. And 
 Delaney learned from " others " that League money was being paid over to the 
 plotters. "And so it comes to this," said Sir Charles, taking a long pinch, and 
 shaking his handkerchief, "it comes to this; that you knew it by hearsay.'* 
 Sir Charles next tackled him on the subject of the alleged signatures of Ivlr. 
 Egan. " Are you an expert? " he asked, carelessly. No ; Mr. Delaney v\as 
 not an expert ; but he remembered the signatures after so many years ; and he 
 identified them when he was shown them "yesterday evening " by T/ie Times 
 agent. He was able to identify them because Carey, seven or eight years ago,.. 
 showed him three of Ivlr. Egan's letters. 
 
 THIRTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 January 17. 
 
 Delaney's cross-examination was resumed by Mr. Reid. Q.C ^r. Reid's- 
 questions referred to what Delaney had already said about Eoyton's identifica- 
 tion of Mr. Burke for the information of the assassin Brady; and to the inter- 
 view in prison between Delaney and ]\Ir. Shannon, the Crown solicitor, who- 
 took his deposition on behalf of The Times. " I heard," Delaney said on the 
 previous day, " I heard Boyton say, ' That's the man.' " Had you ever seen 
 Boyton before? INIr. Reid now asked him. "No." Nor since? "No." 
 " Then how did you know it was Boyton ? " " Brady told me it was Boyton ; 
 and besides, I received orders to be on the spot in order to meet a man named' 
 Boyton." Brady was one of the five who were hanged for the murder. 
 
 Mr. Reid examined Delaney closely on the subject of his prison interview 
 with Mr. Shannon. Mr. Shannon, said the witness, came to me with a letter - 
 of introduction, because I objected to giving information to people I did not 
 know. And yet, Delaney added that he did not know who the person was 
 who gave Mr. Shannon his letter of introduction ; he had not the "slightest 
 idea" who the introducer was. "And yet you give him information," Mr. 
 Reid repeated. Delaney then explained it was safe to give information because 
 none but officials would be allowed to see him in prison. Then why did you 
 require an introductory letter ? was ]\Ir. Reid's rejoinder. 
 
 ISIr. Davitt then tried Delaney, beginning with the witness's gaol conversa- 
 tions. " Did you talk to your warder on this matter? " No, I did not. He 
 never talked Avith the warder except about the prison rules. But surely 
 you must have known about the rules, Mr. Davitt remarked. Delaney, 
 modifying his previous statement, explained that his friendly warder used to 
 give him prison news — Delaney being a prisoner who works by himself. 
 " Honestly," exclaimed Delaney, drawing himself up, " I say that the warder 
 never spoke to me about the Commission." Nor had his wdfe, for, being poor^ 
 she had been unable to visit him during the last two years. And though she- 
 
Thitrsd.iy] the Pdvnell Convnission. [Jiiii. 17. lor 
 
 'wrjte to him regularly, she said nothing about the Commission. At this 
 ■reference to his fam'ly relationship?, Delaney betrayed just a passing shadow 
 
 ■of emotion. At a later stage in the cross-examination he again showed some 
 sign of feehng when, in reference to Carey, he exclaimed, " Ves, I was one of 
 his dupes — to my grief." 
 
 The remainder of Mr. Davitt's cross-examination of the informer was some- 
 what lively. Mr. Davitt asked him whether he was aware that many people, 
 like Mr. Isaac Butt, who had no connection whatever with Fenianism, were 
 prominent in the meetings held in 1876-7, with the object of obtaining an 
 
 .amnesty for Fenian prisoners ; and also whether he was not awai-e that such 
 meetings were perfectly free and open to the public. " Yes," retorted Delaney, 
 
 ""*' but there were secret meetings as well, meetings to which none but Fenians 
 were admitted, and you attendel them ; "' and he instanced one such meeting 
 in 1878, at which he saw Mr. Davitt. But Delaney could not remember the 
 exact date. 
 
 "Come," said Mr. Davitt, "think, this may be a serious business for 
 me." Still, though pressed to say when in 1878, Dehney could not answer. 
 At last he suggested the winter of 1878. '"' Oh," Mr. Davitt then exclaimed, 
 *' would it surprise you if I told you that I was then in America .^ " However, 
 Delaney adhered to his general statement that he had seen Mr. Davitt at that 
 meeting, but he suggested that the year might have been 1877 instead of 1878. 
 
 '■*' You were there," said Delaney, "a fortnight after your release." Mr. 
 Davitt then questioned him about the Rotunda meeting. " You swore yester- 
 
 -=day," said Mr. Davitt, "that I supported Hanlon's resolution at the Rotunda 
 meeting " (which Delaney had described as a League and Fenian meeting); 
 *' what did you mean by supporting ? " The reply was indefinite at first, but 
 eventually Delaney explained that Mr. Davitt supported Hanlon by requesting 
 that he should be heard. 
 
 "Don't you think I was only trying to get fair play for an opponent?" 
 Ml. Davitt continued. Delaney did not know. But if Hanlon was a Fenian 
 
 .-and Mr. Davitt a Fenian, how could they be opponents? In order to throw 
 light on this question, or rather on the question whether at that time Mr. 
 Davitt was a Fenian at all, Mr. Davitt now read out in court the Hanlon re- 
 
 -solution, which denounced "ex-political prisoners" — such as Mr. Davitt 
 hi iiself then was — -"who, by adopting what was called constitutional agitation, 
 were betraying the Irish cause." " Was that resolution friendly to me?" Mr. 
 Divitt asked. After a little hesitation, Delaney answered, "They were friendly 
 
 ■ to you immediately afterwards." Whereupon Mr. Davitt pressed him, pretty 
 
 . severely, about " afterwards." Did Delaney know that the party of violenc 
 which Delaney was associating with the League and with Mr. Davitt, con 
 tinued its attack's upon Mr. Davitt for a long time after the Rotunda meeting; 
 
 -that upon one occasion four men with revolvers went to his (Mr. Davitt' 
 lodgings) to shoot him? No; Mr. Delaney was not aware of anything of the 
 kind. Finally, as to Delaney's statement that Egan and Sheridan, and twc 
 
 •others of their fellow invincibles, as he regarded them, had passed the word 
 
 .that the Fenian centres should not oppose the Land League, Delaney now 
 said that he had not learned this from the four men directly, but from his 
 
 .brother (who was a Fenian centre at the time, and who was subsequently 
 hanged for the Phoenix Park crime). Delaney smiled, and shook his head at 
 Mr. Davitt, as he exclaimed, "Oh, yes, you were always upheld by the 
 Fenians in 1879, 1880, 1881, 1882." 
 
 The Attorney-General's re-examination of Delaney was very brief. In one 
 more reference to Egan, Delaney made an admiring remark about the 
 
 ' " cleverality of his escape" from Ireland. Asked a question or two about the 
 
 . circumstances of the Fenian leaders eight years ago, Delaney said they were so 
 very poor that they were obliged to "pledge their watches" in order to 
 
102 Friday] Diary of [Jci^^- i8.. 
 
 procure funds for sending delegates to Paris, where meetings of Fenians and^ 
 leaguers were to be held. How did he know that? Why, his own brother, . 
 who was a " centre," was one of the Fenians who took his watch to the pawn- 
 broker's. But this chie — if it was a ckie — to further disclosures, real or sup- 
 posed, was not followed up. When the spectators were expecting the Attorney- 
 General to put questions about the Paris meetings, Mr. Attorney was all the 
 while intently studying a sheet of something or other which he held in his 
 right hand. It turned out to be a photograph. " Look at that," said the 
 Attorney-General, " but don't remove the paper" [which covered the name], 
 handing him the photograph, "Do you know who that is ? " After a hard 
 gaze of two or three seconds, Delaney smiled, he looked up sharply — " That's- 
 the man known as No. i." And so the photograph of No. i was handed up 
 to the Bench. The President gazed at it curiously, Mr. Justice Day raised his 
 eyebrows, wrinkled his forehead, and just glanced at it. And then it passed 
 on to Mr. Justice Smith, Mr. Biggar, ]\Ir. Davitt, Mr. Reid, and the whole 
 concourse of Seniors and Juniors. Before Delaney left the box it was arranged 
 that he should be detained in London for some days before being sent back to 
 Mar}'borough gaol. 
 
 The rest of the day was chiefly occupied in examining land agents, and in 
 the reading of Mr. M. Harris's correspondence as a Land League organizer. 
 Mr. Digby, agent for Lord Digby's estates in King's County, declared, like 
 other witnesses of his class, that the League was responsible for the refusal of 
 the tenants to pay the old rents. Another agent, Mr. Hewson, who followed 
 him, said that before the rise of the League he had never heard of the • 
 name moonlighting. But he subsequently admitted, in cross-examination . 
 by Mr. Reid, that the thing existed years before that date. 
 
 The Harris letters were copies, supplied by Dublin Castle. Of startling dis- 
 closures of any sort they were quite destitute. They were chiefly ordinary letters 
 from Mr. Davitt, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Brennan, " to my dear Harris," acknow- 
 ledging his zeal as an organizer. Sir Richard Webster even read out a letter 
 in which Mr. Brennan condoled with ' ' my dear Harris " on his rheumatism. As 
 for payments to Mr. Harris from Land League funds, all the letters showed 
 that Mr. Harris Avas scrupulous in not asking for any return for his work, save- 
 his postage, travelling and stationery expenses. " As I don't know how much I 
 have spent," said Mr. Harris, in one of his letters, " I would rather you paid me 
 too little than too much." 
 
 THIRTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 January iS. 
 
 More land agent Avitnesses. The examinations, on The Times side, were- 
 conducted by the Attorney-General, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Atkinson, ]\Ir. Graham ; . 
 on the other side almost entirely by Mr. Reid. Mr. Asquith cross-examined 
 once or twice, and ]Mr. A. O'Connor ; and Mr. Davitt questioned every single - 
 witness — contriving, with his intimate knowledge of the subject, to throw 
 some additional light on the condition of the Irish peasantry. The purpose of 
 Mr. Davitt's questions was to show that peasant misery and landlord harshness 
 were sufficient in themselves to account for the outrages which the Attorney- 
 General attributed to the promptings of the League. The first of these agent- 
 witnesses was Mr. Young, whose examination-in-chief began the day before. 
 A question put to him by Mr. Davitt, as to whether rents levied by the London 
 
Friday] . the Parnell Coimnission. [Jan. i8. 103 
 
 Skinners' Company upon the tenants of their Derry estates were spent upon 
 London entertainments, failed to elicit any noteworthy reply. 
 
 Next appeared Mr. Garrett Tyrrell, land agent, of King's County. Mr. 
 Tyrrell led the lawyers over long walks through the various estates — four in all 
 — of which he had charge. After Invincible Delaney's talk of the day before, 
 Mr. Tyrrell's conversation was not exciting. Between the histories of his four 
 estates there was a strong family resemblance. 
 
 Mr. Tyrrell's general statement was that before the establishment of 
 the League on, or in the neighbourhood of, these estates, he had never 
 known of combined refusals to pay rent ; nor of intimidation of people 
 who did pay ; nor of any agrarian association whatever, save the League. 
 Replying to Mr. Reid, he said that he was an honorary member of the 
 Property Defence Association; and that "all" the tenants on one of his 
 estates were intimidated; and the "majority" on the others. What! ex- 
 claimed INIr. Reid, as if puzzled at the notion of a whole community being 
 intimidated by itself. " And on the other estates, the people intimidated were 
 the majority ? " "Yes." " Oh ! " 
 
 INIr. Davitt got Mr. Tyrrell to admit that he had a pecuniary interest in the 
 suppression of bodies like the League, the action of which tended to lower the 
 rents from which he derived his percentages. 
 
 The next land agent was from Mayo, INIr. Robert Powell, of Westport. 
 " Oh, yes," said he, answering Mr. Atkinson, " everything in Mayo was quiet 
 up to 1879," after which (the old story) everything went wrong. He had never 
 heard of moonlighting outrages before the year 1879. The sanae old story was, 
 mtitatis viutandis, repeated by the next witness, a Mr, Verriker. 
 
 ]Mr. John Barrett, of Cork, next gave his testimony. He w^as very brusque 
 in his accusations against the League. A candid letter of Mr. Barrett's to 
 Mr. Barrett's priest was read out by Mr. Atkinson. The parish priest 
 was the president of the local branch of the League, and Mr. Barrett 
 wrote to him deploring the use, at a League meeting, of language "too 
 foul for publication " ; accusing the branch of having discussed the propriety 
 of assassinating the writer (Mr. Barrett) ; and declaring that the friendship 
 between them both must cease, inasmuch as the president had not denounced 
 the murderous threat. Mr. Reid extracted an unpleasant piece of information 
 from Mr. John Barrett. It was this — that a poor tenant whom he had evicted, 
 and whom he refused to re-admit, died of hardship and exposure, in a ditch, 
 under the shelter of an upturned boat. 
 
 Then came Mr. Dominick O'Donnell, a Mayo landlord. He, too, told the 
 same old story, but with interesting variations. Mr. Barrett, the previous wit- 
 ness, had had his effigy burnt in his presence by defiant tenants, as a punish- 
 ment for the letter which he wrote to the reverend president. But Mr. 
 Dominick O'Donnell was twice fired at — though by whom or for what reason 
 did not appear. He escaped marvellously — once with a bullet through his 
 coat, the next time with a bullet in his thigh. According to his own account, 
 he must have been one of the most unpopular of Mayo landlords. For which 
 there were several reasons. He dissented, in his capacity of magistrate, from 
 a verdict of wilful murder which a Mayo jury gave against a police inspector 
 who in 1 88 1 ordered his men to fire on a crowd of defenceless people, by 
 which firing one man was shot dead, and others, including women, wounded. 
 
 But he told another story, which doubtless accounted still more for the Mayo 
 peasants' dislike of him. It was elicited from him by Mr. Arthur O'Connor. 
 Well, Mr. O'Donnell, at that eviction of yours, was not the tenant's wife in 
 bed? At this question Mr. O'Donnell jerked himself slightly upwards. " She 
 was," repHed Mr. O'Donnell, with a quick little nod. She refused to get out 
 of bed ? " Yes," replied Mr. O'Donnell, after a pause, and another little jerk. 
 Did the sheriff pull her out ? No — this time with something like an expression 
 
104 Friday] Diary of [Jci^t- i8. 
 
 o" sangfroid. The bailiffs? No. Did the police ? No. By this time Mr. 
 Dominick O'Donnell was fidgetting about rather uneasily, and he reddened, 
 just a little, as he let the secret out : he carried her out himself. And it was 
 at two o'clock in the afternoon. Then Mr. Arthur O'Connor, in his cold, dry 
 way, asked Mr. Dominick O'Donnell whether it was not the fact that he 
 carried her out "naked in presence of the bystanders." Yes ; but the reason 
 was that she " began to kick her clothes off." Had an emergency man 
 been in the box, the story would have been less amusing ; but it was 
 comical to hear all that from a prosperous landlord, whose demeanour was as 
 '' respectable " and grave as that of a kirk elder. The observant reader 
 will have already seen that the lady who " began to kick her clothes off" was 
 shamming sickness. But, lest there should be any doubts on the point, Mr. 
 Dominick O'Donnell declared, with another little nod, that he had seen her 
 the night before "hale and hearty." 
 
 Captain Plunkett, the Irish magistrate, with whose name most newspaper 
 readers are familiar, was the next witness. His famous message, " Don't hesitate 
 to shoot," inspired many a hot debate in the House of Commons at the time. 
 Captain Plunkett — whom the Irish Nationalist papers always call " Plunkett 
 Pasha," while they designate his policemen as " Bashi Bazouks " — proved 
 to be one of the best of The Times witnesses. An old constabulary hand, he 
 stood well the cross-fire of Mr. Reid's, and Mr. Michael Davitt's, questions. 
 Whatever the value of his evidence, as given in answer to the Attorney-General, 
 'the metJiod was skilful. But of course the method was Sir Richard Webster's. 
 Sir Richard's method was to choose two sets of districts in Kerr}-, one set 
 where the League was alleged to be either non-existent or weak, and another 
 where the League was described as strong ; and then to contrast the his- 
 tories of both. In the one set of three districts, where the League was 
 weak, crime was, said Captain Plunkett, non-existent, or nearly so, during the 
 years 1 879-1 883 ; in the four Kerry districts, where the League was strong, 
 crime was frequent and violent. That was argument number one. Argument 
 number two was that in the first three districts, both the people and the soil 
 were poor, and therefore that, as crime was practically non-existent in them, 
 the Nationalist explanation that poverty produced outrage fell to the ground. 
 The other portion of argument number two was that the people were well off 
 and the soil good in the four districts where, as he said, the League and crime 
 flourished. Captain Plunkett then expressed his belief that Kerry outrages 
 could not possibly be attributed to any secret society, except a society forming 
 part of the Land League organization. In fact, he declined to call the moon- 
 lighters a secret society. The moonlighters are only the " Police of the 
 League," exclaimed Captain Plunkett, with an evident air of satisfaction at the 
 pithiness of the expression. (But this description of the moonlighters was 
 given in reply not to the Attorney-General, but to Mr. Reid.) 
 
 Under ]\Ir. Reid's cross-examination Captain Plunkett admitted that after all 
 there might have been League branches in the three quiet districts simul- 
 taneously with the branches in the four disturbed districts. And then, the 
 form, at all events, of his evidence as given to Sir Richard Webster, became 
 unsatisfactory. It seemed as if Captain Plunkett was reasoning in a circle ; 
 thus, the League is strong in such and such a place because crime is rife ; and 
 the reason why the crime is rife is because the League is strong. 
 
 Then Mr. Reid tried another line. He invited Captain Plunkett to give any 
 other specific reasons he had for incriminating the League. Captain Plunkett 
 replied that crime often followed the delivery of Land League speeches ; and 
 also that informers gave him particulars about League resolutions and the out- 
 rages which followed them. As regards the first of the two reasons, Mr. Reid 
 tried to find out whether he meant that because an outrage occurred subse- 
 quently to the delivery of a certain speech, the outrage was the intended effect 
 
Tiiesiay] the Parnell Commission, [Jan. 22. 105 
 
 of the speech. Here Captain Pkmkett, hesitating, remarked that certain 
 •speeches ^vere "calculated to produce" outrages. Then, again, Captain 
 -Plunkett did not seem quite clear as to what he himself meant by a " strong" 
 /branch of the League — whether a branch was strong because it met often, or 
 because it had many members. Upon that point, also, his answers to INIr. Reid 
 'were too indefinite. As to his informers — of whom he had ten or twelve in a 
 .period of seven years — he told Mr. Reid that they were paid by the Irish 
 -Government for their work, and that some of them were kept in pay from year 
 to year. Could they now be found if required to appear in the witness-lDOx, 
 J\Ir. Reid asked. Some of them possibly might, Captain Plunkett thought. 
 Captain Plunkett was very reticent about these informers of his. Mr. Reid 
 asked him about the informer O'Connor — the man who, in the witness-box, 
 lately accused Mr. Harrington, and who described himself as a member of the 
 " secret " (moonlighting) branch of the League. But Captain Plunkett, with 
 Jiis hands in his pockets, kept his lips shut, and his eyes fixed, smilingly, on 
 Mr. Reid. 
 
 Then Mr. Davitt tried Captain Plunkett. IMet ^LacDermott at Cork ? "Yes," 
 barely audible ; with a little nod. Told you his business at Cork? " No ; and 
 •if he had I would not tell you " ; all this in a quiet, level voice. Nor did Cap- 
 tain Plunkett know that MacDermott was a Castle agent. Did he speak to you ? 
 No. Or you to him ? No. Did he write to you? Or you to him ? No. 
 .Swear you don't know MacDermott was organizing a dynamite conspiracy at 
 .New York? Captain Plunkett shook his head — ^just the ghost of a little 
 .rshake. Standing there, steady and solid as a wall, with his hands in his 
 ■pockets, and answering in his quiet, slow manner, or merely nodding, or 
 shaking his head, in place of saying yes, or no, Captain Plunkett seemed all 
 the more amused the more Mr. Davitt pressed him. Captain Plunkett smiled 
 -as he lazily sauntered out of his box. 
 
 THIRTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 January 22. 
 
 -Sir Henry James's leisurely and exhaustive examination of an ex-clerk of 
 the head office of the Land League in Dublin has been one of the most 
 interesting episodes of the trial. There have been informers — calling them- 
 selves P'enians, Invincibles, Moonhghters — who were connected, or alleged to 
 be connected, with local branches of the Land and National Leagues. But 
 ex-clerk Farragher is the first informer hailing from headquarters — from the 
 privacy of the head office itself. But before Farragher was called, Mr. 
 .Studdert, agent to JNIr. Vandeleur, in county Clare, was examined on the 
 general question of relations between landlord and tenant. This was 
 the same agent under whom the evictions of last August carried out on 
 the Kilrush estates. ■Mr. Studdert's answers generally coincided with 
 those already given by landlord and agent witnesses. But Sir Charles 
 Russell, in his cross-examination, elicited admissions that were not alto- 
 -gether flattering to the system of landlord management in county Clare. 
 ISIr. Studdert fixed at 22 per cent.- the average amount of reductions 
 ^granted by the Land Commissioners to tenants of Mr. Vandeleur. Sir 
 •Charles Russell quoted figures to show that in many cases the reductions- 
 iad been much larger. But still more significant were the figures showmghow 
 -a-ents had been raised by the landlord — raised, that is to say, on the tenant's 
 
io6 Tuesday] Diary of \Jcin. 2^^ 
 
 own improvements. Sir Charles Russell, however, did not pursue this subject 
 very far. Mr. Studdert also admitted that the year 1879 "was one of the 
 worst years we ever had," and yet, that not until the end of 1881 did the- 
 landlord grant any relief to his harassed tenants. Mr. Davitt, who is an 
 assiduous cross-examiner, and as regular and punctual in his attendance as 
 the judges themselves, next questioned Mr. vStuddert as to his knowledge 
 of Tipperary, some estates in which were under Mr. Studdert's supervision. 
 Like others of his class, Mr. Studdert thought that before the fatal year of the 
 League — 1879 — Ireland was an Arcadia. Mr. Davitt, therefore, asked him if 
 he had ever heard of these agrarian murders in Tipperary (giving a rapid 
 enumeration of them), recorded to have been perpetrated between 1870 and 
 1879. Mr. Studdert had not heard of one of them. " ^Yell," said Mr. 
 Davitt, " can you tell me of a single case of agrarian murder in Tipperary 
 since the year 1879?" Mr. Studdert could not. But then Mr. Studdert 
 suggested that the League may have been comparatively weak in Tipperary. 
 " Weak ! " exclaimed Mr. Davitt. " Would you be surprised to learn that there 
 have been more branches of the Land and National Leagues in Tipperary 
 than in any other Irish county ? " Mr. Studdert knew nothing about it. " But 
 I know," was the expression on Mr. Davitt's face, as he abruptly and im- 
 patiently resumed his seat. 
 
 Farragher introduced himself as a Mayo farmer. He declared that in 1879' 
 Mr. Michael Davitt and Mr. J. W. Walsh bribed him — for it amounted to that 
 ^-not to pay the rent which, as he stated emphatically in the box, he was quite 
 able to pay. That was when Mr. Davitt and his colleagues were founding the 
 Land League. "I was to hold out,"' said Farragher, "for a twenty-five per 
 cent, reduction ; and I was promised (by Messrs. Davitt and Walsh) that if I 
 was turned out I would be provided for." Well, Farragher was turned out. 
 Whereupon, according to his own account, he asked for the reward of his 
 virtue. The promised reward was a post in the Land League office. He went 
 to Dublin. There he saw Mr. Davitt, the Father of the League, and Mr. 
 Brennan, its Secretary. And he got nothing. I knocked about Dublin, . 
 said he, for eight or nine months, until all my money was gone. " Did 
 you apply to Air. Davitt in Dublin?" "I am perfectly certain I did."' 
 At last his reward came — a clerkship in the League office at a pound a week,, 
 subsequently raised to thirty shillings. And what were iSIr. Farragher 's duties 
 in the League office? He w^as attached to the "Law department" of the 
 organization : that is, the department which conducted the defence of the 
 leaguers— chiefly tenant farmers, of course — charged with breaches of the law. 
 Through this department moneys were issued for the payment of solicitors and 
 barristers. If there was any really criminal work hatched in Upper O'Connell 
 Street, ISIr. Farragher was in a position to know something of it, although his 
 post in the establishment was one of the humblest. Egan, said Farragher, 
 was the treasurer at that time, Brennan was the secretary. Dr. Kenny, M.P.,. 
 was treasurer after Egan's departure for Paris. So far, the only allegation of 
 a serious nature made by Farragher was his accusation of bribery against Mr. 
 Davitt. 
 
 Mullett, whose name has already been mentioned in the course of the trial,, 
 was an invincible, condemned to the same life punishment which Delaney,. 
 the informer of last week, is now undergoing. Farragher now stated that on 
 several occasions he had taken letters from Egan [in Egan's own handwriting, 
 and containing cheques] to ]Mullett, at his public-house, in Dorset Street, Dublin ;. 
 that Egan often visited Mullett, and associated with him in the streets. 
 
 Farragher told his story readily enough in his examination-in-chief; but his 
 memory sadly failed him when cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell. His 
 cross-examination may be generally described as an attempt to fix him 
 even to a single date ; but the attempt was a complete failure. Periods 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Jan. 22. 107- 
 
 of a more or less approximate character, rather than specific dates, were all 
 that could be learned from him. And his " record" was scarcely satisfactory. 
 Charges of drunkenness and of immorality " were brought against him during 
 his incumbency as master of Eallinrobe AVorkhouse, county ]\iayo. But, as he 
 said, he "got out of that," though he resigned his post. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell, being anxious to find out whether Farragher had 
 been "put up" in any way to testify against the League, asked him how 
 it was that he came to appear before the Commission. Farragher replied 
 that he had been summoned in consequence of an inadvertence of his own, 
 his inadvertence being some references of his, in the course of conversation 
 with four or five people, to his past connection M'ith the League. But ot 
 the four 'or five he could only identify one. ^Vho was he? "A black 
 man." At which answer there was a burst of laughter in court, as if the 
 Prime INIinister's phrase were here recognized. In his examination-in-chief he- 
 had stated that Mr. Parnell, IMr. Sexton, Mr. Healy, and others had been 
 attending League Committee meetings for six months or so before the 
 suppression of the League in October, i88i. "Do you mean to say," 
 asked Sir Charles Russell, " that they were attending while Parliament 
 was sitting?" He believed they did. But would he swear ? No. Nor had 
 he himself ever been present at a Committee meeting. Nor had he been very 
 often at the public meetings. Nor could he tell in what year the Land League 
 shifted its headquarters from Abbey Street to Upper Sackville Street. In 
 1880 "perhaps"; but he could not swear. How long had he been in the 
 service of the League? He could not tell exactly ; " I should say I was a 
 year." According to his examination-in-chief, he must have been longer, for, 
 as he was evicted in August or September of 1879, and as he received his 
 appointment in the League office "eight or nine months" afterwards, this 
 appointment must have dated from May or June, 1880 ; and he served in the 
 League office until its suppression in October, 1881, so that he must have been 
 about sixteen months at his post. "Will you swear you were in the League 
 office before February, 1 881 ?" he was asked. Yes, he would ; he would say 
 that he was in the office in the summer of 1 880 — which would make his 
 full term of service about sixteen months, as already said. 
 
 Again, taxing his memory, he could not mention any date at which he had 
 seen Egan at the League office, though " I often did see him there, twenty or 
 thirty times at least." Egan visited the office "every time he came from 
 Paris," but even that reminiscence could not help him to a date. Sir Charles 
 repeated his question over and over again. "I'll try once more," said 
 Sir Charles. "Was there ever a space of time during which you did not see 
 Mr. Egan at the League office?" "Yes." "When?" "I can't say." 
 Another burst of laughter, which Sir James Hannen rebuked. Farragher 
 recollected Egan going to Paris ; but could not say when. He remembered 
 his coming back ; but could not say when. He remembered Mr. Egan visiting 
 the place after February, 1881, but could not say when, nor how often, though 
 he suggested ten times, "perhaps." Nor could he tell at what precise dates 
 he carried Pat Egan's letters to Invincible Mullett's public-house ; nor how 
 many letters he took. Did you take one ? Yes. Two ? Yes. Three ? 
 Yes. Four? Yes. Five? Yes. Six? Yes. Seven? Yes. Eight? "I 
 can't tell you," replied Farragher, abruptly stopping short. As for these 
 letters, Egan made no concealment whatever in giving them to him for 
 delivery. As for the payment of money through the League, Farragher did 
 not appear to be aware of the existence of an open and public sustenance fund 
 for the " suspects " under Forster's Act. Nor did he seem to know what was 
 meant by the Land Leaguers' "test cases" in disputes between landlords and. 
 tenants. 
 
io8 Wednesday] Diary of ' [Jan. 23. 
 
 THIRTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 January 23. 
 
 Sir Henry James resumed the reading of the letters, some of which the 
 informer Farragher had declared on the preceding day to be in the handwriting 
 of clerks of the Land League. But after a little while Sir Henry James sug- 
 gested that his next batch of letters should be put in without being read. These 
 letters were, generally, requests to the League for authority to defend prisoners 
 charged with such offences as riot and forcible entry. And then he began to read 
 from another batch, containing correspondence to and from the League, and 
 "forms" of various sorts, including "guidance for organizers" of League 
 branches. This preliminaiy work consumed more than an hour, after which 
 the first witness of the day, Mr. Robert Sandys, was called. 
 
 In reply to Mr. Murphy, he gave evidence of relationship between his 
 father and his tenants, including the tenants of other landlords for whom 
 his father acted as agent. Mr. Sandys, now about twenty-seven years 
 old, was at Dublin College when the Land League was beginning its 
 operations in the districts where his father was managing his estates. Mr. 
 Sandys w-as exceedingly confident in his assertions concerning the state of 
 things before 1879-80. In 1880, soon after the League Avas established, 
 Mr. Sandys's tenants asked for certain reductions. He refused. Then, 
 said the witness, " the Land League took the matter up." "How do you 
 know that ? " Sir Charles Russell sharply interposed. ]Mr. Sand)'^, junior, 
 described how, after that, all his father's servants left him, and how he and 
 his brothers were in consequence obliged to labour on their father's estate. 
 He described how tenants used to come "secretly" " longdi.>tances to pay their 
 rents." They did it, said the witness, because they feared the League — 
 " feared murder and outrage." 
 
 In cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell, it appeared that the following 
 were some of the Land Court reductions of rent on the estates which, accord- 
 ing to Mr. Sandys's evidence, were managed in a spirit of fairness — from ;!^46 
 to £^0, from;^23 to ;^iS, from £i^ to 2^12, from ;^i8 to ;!^ii. The Poor 
 Law valuation on the ^46 rent was;!^26 ; on the /^2^ rent, ;!^I2 ; and ;^io on 
 the £1^ rent. Sir Charles Russell read out the figures, but Mr. Sandys was 
 unable, just then, to check them. 
 
 And now, having shown by means of the correspondence already mentioned 
 how the Land League branches w^ere organized all over Ireland, the Attorney- 
 General called for Dennis Tobin. Tobin, a dark-haired young man with a 
 pallid complexion, sharpish features, and alert manner, described himself as a 
 member of a moonlighting society in his native county of Limerick. He 
 joined the moonlighters' society in 1880, and he declared that the society existed 
 " at the present day." He rattled off his answers to Sir Richard Webster's 
 questions, glibly, fluently, without a moment's hesitation. He spoke as one 
 who had his eyes about him W'herever he went, and upon whom not one of his 
 exciting experiences had been lost. He incriminated the Land League right 
 and left — associating its organizers with the secret society, for the perpetration 
 of outrage. The man who swore him into the secret society, a man named 
 Mclnery, was, said Tobin, a leaguer ; "to my knowledge he established all 
 the League branches round about." This man told me, he continued, that the 
 "moonlighters were the support of the League ; and that without them the 
 leaguers could do no good." Tobin also gave a rapid matter-of-fact statement 
 of the oath he took as a moonlighter — to be "true to my counthree," and to 
 "bate down landlords and their agents ; " and " if I refrained I \vas to suffer 
 death." 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Coimnission. [Jan. 23. log 
 
 Then Mr. Tobin proceeded to narrate how the secret department of the 
 Land League was organized. In his district of Limerick there were three sub- 
 divisions, each with its " captain." He named the three captains — Morrissey, 
 Conners, and Griffin, the last being a tailor. And all three of them were alive ; 
 at least he could answer for the two who were still at home, but Conners was 
 in Australia. Of these local " captains " the chief was, he said, this same 
 man, Mclnery, who swore him in ; and he continued to be Captain-General 
 until the time of his arrest as a suspect ; and when he was arrested he was 
 succeeded by another leaguer, of the name of William Maugan. 
 
 Could Mr. Tobin name any other member of the society? He could ; and 
 he named Matt Delhan, Tom Griffin, James Griffin, William Lyon, Tim 
 Leahy, and Morris Leahy. Now, asked" vSir Richard Webster, of all these 
 moonlighters, how many would you think were leaguers? " I would say,'^ 
 was the answer, and here Mr. Tobin raised his eyebrows and threw out his- 
 chest, " I would say the whole were members of the League." For the sake- 
 of connection it may here be stated that Tobin himself was not a leaguer. 
 This he stated in his cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell. So that Mr. 
 Tobin must have been indebted to his fellow-moonlighters, who were leaguers, 
 for his knowledge of what was said and done in the League. Delhan, one of^ 
 the leaguers and moonlighters named in the foregoing list, had, he said, told 
 him about the " resolutions" passed at League meetings for "raiding" persons 
 whom the League disapproved. And these resolutions, Tobin added, were 
 read at the moonlighters' secret meetings. Passing on to his further connection 
 with associations, he said that he joined the National League in 1885 or 1886' 
 — the Brossna branch of it, of which a man named Moriarty was secretary, 
 and a man named Curtin, treasurer. Moriarty and Curtin are still living in 
 Brossna, said he. T. J. Conners was secretary of another local branch, whom 
 Mr. Tobin said he knew. 
 
 Mr. Tobin next described how the moonlighter and leaguer Delhan had 
 supplied him with a gun and a revolver, which he kept secretly, " off and on," 
 for six years, and how, after the end of the six years, he gave back the weapons 
 to Captain Morrissey (one of the three local captains already named). But it 
 did not appear that Tobin ever made any use either of gun or revolver. 
 Still he was engaged on several criminal expeditions, the first of which was a 
 raid on Pat Conners's cattle, at the instigation of the T. J. Conners whom he 
 had already described as a League secretary. And this same T. J. Conners 
 gave Griffin (Mr. Tobin's moonlighter friend) ^^5 to do the "job." Mr. 
 Tobin gave an account of the scene where he and his fellow-moonlighters 
 assembled for the purpose of "lifting" Pat Conners's cattle; how, dreading 
 the police, who had a hut near the spot, they attempted nothing that night ; 
 how they returned the next night, and how their courage again failed them ; 
 and a third night, and how it again failed ; and how the conscientious Griffin 
 exclaimed at last that " there was five pounds gone, and we've done nothing." 
 However, the gang made some amends to their employers, for, subsequently 
 to the three meetings at Pat's, one of them returned and slaughtered one of 
 Pat's cows. Some time after the above attempt at an exploit, Mr. Tobin was 
 engaged on another expedition — against a Miss Thompson's cattle. The 
 locality was called Knocknalough, which was one of the three moonlighting 
 centres of which he spoke at the beginning of his evidence. At the ren- 
 dezvous " I met five men and myself," remarked ]Mr. Tobin. Here the rascals 
 did something for their money ; they killed three cows. Then they left 
 behind them a hatchet which they had used in the killing, and the hatchet was 
 found by the police. How much did ]\Ir. Tobin get for this "job "? Seven 
 shillings and sixpence. And this money was paid to him, according to his 
 story, by the League secretary, T. J. Conners, already named. The rest of 
 Mr. Tobin's exploits may be briefly summed up. He was engaged in what he 
 
no Wednesday] Diary of [Jan. 23. 
 
 called a " frightening plan" — an example of which was his firing into the 
 liouse of a certain James Walsh, who had supplied horses to a boycotted 
 "farmer named Pat Sullivan. Then, again, he was engaged with others in 
 beating Dennis Connor because he worked for the Pat Conners of an earlier 
 part of the story. At another place, he and his fellow-moonlighters stole a 
 gun. And he would have visited somebody else, but that, said Mr. Tol^in, 
 " I got ill — I got the colic." Finally, Mr. Tobin himself was so hardly 
 pressed that he, too, took service on an evicted farm. For this reason he was 
 boycotted by his former colleagues, the moonlighter-leaguers, and his house was 
 fired into. Poetic justice ; he was treated as he himself would have treated 
 _James Walsh's. This was in 1887. And in the end, he and his former 
 associates were now at loggei'heads. 
 
 Although unprepared to question a witness who had been "sprung upon" 
 him, Sir Charles Russell cross-examined. Mr. Tobin told him that he never 
 was a Land Leaguer, and that it was the end of 1885, or the beginning of 1886, 
 before he joined the National League. What did he know, then, of the 
 National League branch of which he became a member? Next to nothing, as 
 it turned out. He did not know who the president was ; he could not identify 
 the treasurer ; he could only say that ]\Ioriarty took his card of membership 
 money. Nor could he clearly identify the place where the National League 
 met, nor say positively who the owner or occupier of the house was, except 
 that he thought it was a man named Moore. He had only been twice at the 
 National League office — one Sunday, when he went to pay his shilling ; another 
 ■Sunday, when he went for his card. Did he get his card? No. "They 
 were out of cards," both Sundays. Tobin next confessed he had never seen 
 any of his moonlighting friends at Land League meetings, or National League 
 meetings ; and also that he had never seen, at his moonlight trips, any of the 
 Nationalist leaguers whom he had met on the occasion of his two only visits 
 to the National League office. These two admissions Sir Charles Russell, 
 after repeated questions, made sure of. All that Tobin could remember was 
 that Moriarty occupied the chair the first Sunday and Curtin the second, and 
 that he " never," "never " received his card of membership. Mr. Tobin pro- 
 nounced his "never" with much emphasis, raising his eyebrows and gazing at 
 the ceiling. "So then," said Sir Charles Russell, "it comes to this, that 
 apart from what you were told by other people you had no reason for supposing 
 that ^NITnery and the other moonlighters whom you named were leaguers." 
 Mr. Tobin admitted that that was the case. And Moriarty was regarded in 
 the locality as a respectable man? Yes. And Curtin? Here Mr. Tobin 
 hesitated. Perhaps he doesn't come up to your ideas of respectability ? sug- 
 :gested Sir Charles. 
 
 Ever been in any trouble ? Sir Charles inquired curiously. No ; Mr. Tobin 
 never had been. " Very w-ell — very well. Ever in prison ? " "Yes." "Oh, 
 wasn't that trouble?" "No trouble to me," retorted Mr. Tobin, drawing 
 himself up. What was he in prison for? For an assault on John Conners, 
 and he was kept six weeks in gaol. 
 
 Sergeant Fawcett, R.LC, and another witness, gave evidence about a Mr. 
 Cronan, an active Nationalist, who had been sending in supplies of food 
 to a large number of prisoners awaiting trial on charges of moonlighting and 
 -other crimes, and in whose company one of the witnesses had seen Mr. John 
 O'Connor, M.P., Mr. Lane, M.P., :\Ir. O'Hea, M.P., Mr. Gilhooly, M.P., 
 and Mr. T. Healy, M.P. Mr. Healy and Mr. O'Connor visited the moon- 
 lighters in prison, said the witness. Then a deputy inspector of the R.LC, 
 with his sword by his side, entered the box and gave evidence regarding letters 
 and documents — including a copy of an Amended Constitution of the Irish 
 Republican Brotherhood — which he had seized in the house of Mr. Coghlan, 
 •secretary of a local branch of the Land League in Mayo. Among the letter 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Coimnission. [Jan. 24. iii 
 
 writers was Miss Parnell. The letters referred generally to legal pro- 
 cesses in defence of prisoners charged with agrarian offences and crimes. 
 Finally Captain Slack, a divisional commissioner for eight counties in Ireland, 
 dated the beginning of the present trouble in Ireland from the year of the 
 League, alleging that before 1879 he had never heard of moonlighting, nor of 
 outrage upon people for paying their rent. 
 
 THIRTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 January 24. 
 
 ■Captain Slack's evidence was, in some respects, the most important and 
 interesting yet made before the Commission. To any one desirous of realizing 
 the actual condition of the Ireland of Land and National Leagues, and moon- 
 lighter societies, and agrarian crime, this magistrate's testimony must be of the 
 highest value. 
 
 Captain Slack's official experience began twenty years ago ; and for several 
 years he has had, as a divisional magistrate, jurisdiction over eight counties. 
 What then is his deliberate opinion ? That the Land and National Leagues 
 are the cause of the disturbance — the social war, with its burnings, muti- 
 lations, and murders — which in his belief began with 1879- 1880. He 
 has arrived at the conclusion by a process of exhaustive reasoning, mainly. 
 Before 1879-80 he had not even heard of land-grabbing and moonlighting; 
 nor of punishment, by outrage, of tenants who took farms " behind the backs" 
 ■of their neighbours ; nor of police reinforcements for the purpose of protecting 
 intimidated tenants : and he maintained that the amount of agrarian distress was 
 insufficient to account for the new outbreaks of crime — crime which, he said, 
 was new in kind. Except this new society, th-e Land League, said Captain 
 Slack, there was none to which he could attribute the new disturbance and 
 crime. Be it observed that Captain Slack insists on the newness of them — 
 new, that is, since 1879. 
 
 In putting his argument into a more detailed form Captain Slack said he had 
 observed: (i) That denunciatory resolutions and speeches of League branches 
 and League orators were followed by outrages. (2) And that when crimes were 
 perpetrated upon persons not obeying what were known to be League rules, no 
 repudiation of these crimes followed from the League. So far, his charges 
 against the League were inferential. But Captain Slack asserted that he had 
 received private information of League encouragement and authorization of 
 crime — which information had sometimes enabled him to prevent intended 
 -outrages. "You always tested your secret information?" he was asked. 
 Always ; and Captain Slack then explained, to a very attentive audience, how, 
 for his own guidance and information, he had been collecting and classifying 
 •extracts from Nationalist newspaper reports on League meetings and League 
 speeches. As he stood there, in his box. Captain Slack had his volumes of 
 extracts and MS. notes, his official lists of riots, all about him, ranged very 
 neatly. He must have been a diligent and conscientious reader of the Irish 
 papers — to judge from the bulk of his extracts. And he had mastered them. 
 At a hint, or a question, from the Attorney-General, down Captain Slack's 
 Jiand went upon the particular cutting or MS. wanted. The divisional magis- 
 trate is a methodical man. Captain Slack is short and stout, bald — with a 
 fringe of yellowish hair — clean shaven, ruddy ; he has a good-humoured, alert 
 look, and his movements are as lively as his eyes. 
 
 If in the pre-League period Ireland was the peaceful Arcadia which Captain 
 
112 Thursday] Diary of [Jcin. 24^ 
 
 Slack (like the landlords and agents who have preceded him in court) repre- 
 sented it to be, how could he account for the eighty-nine Coercion Acts of the- 
 century ? Was he not aware that the Governments which introduced all the 
 Coercion Bills justified their action on the ground of the general prevalence of 
 agrarian crime ? After a little hesitation, Captain Slack replied that his pro- 
 fessional experience did not begin till 1S68. Then there speedily followed' 
 another admission, that the Land Act passed only two years after 1868 did not, 
 as he thought, go " far enough " in affording relief to the Irish peasantry. 
 Still, he considered that the Land Acts subsequently to 1880 did far more 
 than enough. They were " gratuitous " interferences between landlord and 
 tenant, suggested Sir Charles Russell, a description of them to which the 
 divisional magistrate did not demur. "You are a landlord yourself," Sir 
 Charks remarked carelessly, and he became absorbed in a list containing the 
 names of some of Captain Slack's own tenants. There was one of Captain 
 Slack's tenants whose poor law valuation was;!^23, old rent ^40, and judicial 
 rent £2.^ — £\% struck off a rent of £^o. Another tenant, whose poor law 
 valuation was £\A-< P^id a rent of ;^23, which the Land Commissioners reduced 
 to ;i^i5, and the £2"^ rent had been raised from ;^io, the figure at which it 
 stood in 1859. A third tenant's old rent of ^5 was reduced by the Commis- 
 sioners to £^. And a fourth tenant, who paid £'] ^ succeeded on appeal to the 
 Commissioners in getting a remission of £'^. In the above statements of 
 figures the shillings are omitted. At the end of each statement Sir Charles 
 would look up from his paper, remove his glasses, and gaze at Captain 
 Slack. He pronounced his " twenty-two pounds," in the first of his four 
 statements, loudly. All the while Captain Slack stood bolt upright in his- 
 box, his arms folded, his chest thrown out, his head on one side. He did not 
 consider that such reductions were necessary. "So you are not free from 
 landlord feeling," remarked his cross-examiner ; upon which Captain Slack 
 retorted that he was unprejudiced on the matter. 
 
 Then came a most interesting part of the cross-examination. Asked whether 
 he considered that, apart from agrarian crime, Ireland was as free from lawless- 
 ness as any country in the world, Captain Slack admitted, after some hesita- 
 tion, that he believed it was. What, then, was the origin of this agrarian 
 crime ? Divisional Magistrate Captain Slack had already enunciated his theory 
 and honest conviction that the League was its parent. Veiy well, then ; Sir 
 Charles Russell proceeded to investigate the case on the supposition that the- 
 Land League caused it. "Can you," he was challenged, "tell me a single - 
 case of agi-arian murder in Tipperary since 1879?" Captain Slack plunged 
 into MSS. and newspaper extracts. He turned over the leaves rapidly one 
 after the other. He could not recollect any such case. " A single case in- 
 Kilkenny county ? " Again Captain Slack consulted his documents, fruitlessly. 
 And he was equally unsuccesshd as regards other districts, such as Carlow and 
 Wicklow. " And yet," exclaimed Sir Charles Russell, raising his voice, "in 
 ever}' parish of every one of these counties, there has been since 1879 a branch 
 of the League." This was admitted. And in the county Tipperary alone there 
 were one hundred and thirty branches of the League? " At least," was the 
 reply. There, then, was an illustration, or rather" a group of illustrations, of 
 the League existing where murders were absentt 
 
 " Now take Tipperar}- before the League," Sir Charles Russell continued, 
 asking Captain Slack if he recollected cases of murderous outrage, and of 
 threatening notices long before 1879. But Captain Slack had no knowledge of 
 them. In part of his cross-examination, as well as at its commencement, 
 Captain Slack admitted his lack of acquaintance A\dth the Parhamentar)' Blue- 
 book literature of agrarian Ireland, and with the investigations and conclusions 
 of Commissions — such as the Devon Commission. In the earlier part of his 
 evidence Captain Slack expressed his belief that such agrarian outrages as did;_ 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [Jan. 24. 113 
 
 exist before 1879 arose from individual and private malice. And now Sir 
 Charles Russell asked him whether he did not know that Commissions of 
 Inquiry in Ireland had always reported that the peasant community, as a rule, 
 screened agrarian crime — that, in other words, the tenants combined to conceal 
 crime long before the League ever existed. Captain Slack repHed that he did 
 not know. Sir Charles Russell now approached the question from a third 
 direction. There were some good years after 1870, were there not ? Yes; 
 some of them very good. And did not crime fall off during these years ? Yes. 
 And did you not see that, when the bad years returned and the rents pressed 
 hardly, crime once more increased ? Yes. And was it not the case that crime 
 abounded most in the districts where the population was densest and the 
 poverty greatest ? That, also, Captain Slack admitted. 
 
 Sir Charles then invited Captain Slack to quote a single case in which a man 
 had been forced to join the League. In his examination-in-chief, Captain Slack 
 stated that the League practically became the government of whatever district it 
 was established in ; and that sometimes persons were obliged to join it. And 
 now Captain Slack explained that he had only had private information of com- 
 pulsory membership. As no names were to be mentioned this part of the 
 subject was not pursued further. Sir Charles Russell next challenged the 
 witness to produce a single case in which denunciation by the League had caused 
 outrage. Captain Slack searched his inflammatory newspaper articles. At 
 last he found an extract from The Mtmster Express, describing how a man 
 who, in January, 1885, had put his cows to graze on an "evicted " farm was 
 punished in October of the same year by the mutilation of his cows' tails. But 
 it turned out that from beginning to end of the newspaper extracts there was 
 not a word of denunciation of the cow owner. " Where is the denunciation ? " 
 Sir Charles Russell asked. But Captain Slack's reply was to the effect 
 that the cow owner had done something which, as a matter of course, was 
 against League policy, as indicated in League rules. On this document there 
 was an entry in red ink to the effect that this new case " proved denunciation 
 clearly." After a good deal of discussion over this point Captain Slack 
 admitted that that was not the kind of document he was in search of. Could 
 he quote any other instance ? He could not, just then. And here Captain 
 Slack explained that though he had not the required documents with him in 
 court, he could produce them. Captain Slack had kept notes and extracts for 
 his private use of no fewer than six hundred and fourteen League meetings, 
 although, as already said, he could not produce at the moment even one such 
 instance as Sir Charles Russell was asking for. Mr. Lockwood followed Sir 
 Charles Russell with a few questions on the witness's statement that the League 
 did not denounce crime. Mr. Lockwood referred to speeches by Mr. Parnell, 
 Mr. John Redmond, M.P., Mr. Dwyer Gray, M. P., Mr. Arthur O'Connor, 
 M.P., and other prominent leagi;ers, all condemning outrage ; but Captain 
 Slack, notwithstanding his wide journalistic reading, was unacquainted with 
 them. If you had been acquainted with these speeches, asked Mr. Lockwood, 
 would you have modified your opinion about the leaguers' abstention from 
 condemning outrage ! To which question Captain Slack rephed with con- 
 siderable hesitation and embarrassment that he would have admitted the 
 exceptions. 
 
 With the exception of the half-hour's interval and of a few minutes devoted to 
 the correspondence of the Ladies' Land League, the whole of the sitting from 
 half-past twelve to four o'clock was spent in the reading of speeches delivered 
 in Ireland years ago by the members of the Parnellite party, speeches which 
 are pubhc property, recorded in every newspaper. These speeches dealt 
 generally with the principles of the League ; fair rents ; and peasant proprietor- 
 ship, on equitable terms of purchase ; and boycotting of persons who settled 
 with their landlords on terms which the associated leaguers considered unfair. 
 
 9 
 
114 Friday] Diary of [J^^^- 25 and 29. 
 
 What was the object of all that reading, Sir James Ilannen asked. If it was 
 desirable to make these speeches known to a wider public than was present in 
 court, could it not be done in print ? "I have read all these speeches through 
 in my room," said Sir James. " I have spent days over them." And he added 
 that if they were to be read through in full in court many days would have to 
 be spent over the task. Could not the speeches be sent in without being read ? 
 Mr. Lockwood at once accepted the suggestion, adding that passages considered 
 relevant should be marked. Sir Henry James, however, demurred to this 
 proposal. Without the consent of the Attorney-General, who was not present, 
 he could not omit the reading of his extracts. And so the reading was 
 resumed. Mr. Lockwood read all he had to say from Mr. Biggar's speech. 
 Then Sir Henry James followed. Next Mr. Asquith followed Sir Henry 
 James. And so on through the slow hours. One of the most important of 
 the speeches was Mr. Parnell's at Ennis, September 19, 1880, which was read 
 zn extenso. Mr. Asquith read Mr. Parnell's advice to his hearers to abstain 
 from violence ; and Sir Henry James read Mr. Parnell's observation 
 that there was "a better way" than shooting grabbers — namely, "cutting" 
 them, boycotting them; and then, again, Mr. Asquith read the passages in which 
 INIr. Parnell expressed the hope that landlords and tenants might settle their 
 differences "peacefully and quietly" while there was yet time. 
 
 THIRTY-NINTH AND FORTIETH DAYS. 
 
 Jan. 25 AND 29. 
 
 W^HEN the Court rose yesterday it was agreed that before next sitting counsel 
 on both sides should try to agree upon some plan by which the reading of the 
 speeches delivered by the Irish members and others in Ireland since 1879 
 might be curtailed. When, however, the Court met to-day, Sir Henry James 
 announced that, after consultation with the other side, he found he must 
 proceed with the reading of those parts of the speeches which he considered 
 to be relevant. Whereupon Mr. Reid observed that in that case he and his 
 learned colleagues must read theirs. "Yes, I see that," the President re- 
 marked ; " if one side reads extracts, the other will claim to quote passages in 
 qualification of them. And then," he added, "have you reflected that as 
 a matter of calculation the reading of these speeches will occupy eight or ten 
 days ? " 
 
 It would occupy some days, no doubt, Sir Henry James thought, but he 
 expressed the hope that the reading might be got through sooner than the 
 President anticipated. If this, continued Sir Henry James, were an ordinary 
 inquiry, the documents would be put in without being read ; but this was a 
 public inquiry, and the speeches were important factors in The Ti??ies case, so 
 that if they were not read " our tale would only be half told." This preliminary- 
 discussion ended in a prediction by Mr. Reid that in two or three days even 
 Sir Henry's patience would give way. Then the reading began. The first 
 speech read was one of Mr. T. Healy's, delivered in county Cork eight and a 
 half years ago. From this speech it appeared how a veterinary surgeon had 
 told %lx. Healy that certain cows' tails looked as if they had been cut off by a 
 sword bayonet, and how thereupon Mr. Healy suggested " perhaps the officers 
 at the barracks wanted to have some ox-tail soup." Mr. Parnell, Mr. Arthur 
 O'Connor, Mr. T. M. Sullivan, Mr. John Dillon, Mr. :Matt Harris, were 
 among the Irish members whose old speeches were read. " Scrab " also 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Jan. 25 and 29. 115 
 
 flitted across the oratorical waste. One of Mr. Matt Harris's speeches aroused 
 a little interest, for a moment or two. This was the renowned partridge 
 speech : " If the tenant farmers of Ireland shot down the landlords as partridges 
 were shot down in November, then Matt Harris would never say one word 
 against them." Mr. Lockwood, for the Parnellite side, now rose to quote 
 further statements of Mr. Harris, in explanation of the passage about part- 
 ridges — Mr. Harris had in his mind's eye a picture of the ruthless exterminator, 
 :and a picture of the exterminator's victim, and what he meant by the un- 
 fortunate expression was that he would not stay the victim's hand while the 
 ■ oppressor's was free. There were some amusing instances of the figurative 
 : style. Thus, Mike Boyton spoke of land-grabbers as "rank weeds that were 
 growing on the green soil that was once pressed by the blessed footsteps of 
 St. Bridget." Throughout the day the attendance was extremely small. 
 Even the Press seats were two-thirds empty. 
 
 The next day also, the fortieth, was spent in the reading of speeches — a dreary 
 business, the droning monotone of which might well have sent the attenuated 
 .audience to sleep. As on the previous day, the Press seats were mostly empty, 
 " The public " was conspicuous by its absence. The most noteworthy speeches 
 read were some by Mr. Boyton, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Biggar, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, 
 Mr. J. P. Gordon, in the years 1880-85. The first speech of Boy ton's spoke 
 
 • of a land-grabber as being no less odious a person than an informer, and as a 
 person who should be regarded as "a miserable traitor." In order to qualify 
 the passages read by Sir Henry James, Mr. Lockwood read passages in which 
 Boyton said that Ireland was to be regenerated, not on the battle-field, but by 
 
 • civilized methods, and the consent of Irishmen to live and work together. 
 Then Sir Henry James read the speech in which Mr. Dillon was represented 
 
 . as having said he would show the tenants a better way than the shooting of 
 grabbers (this in correction of a man in the crowd who called out "shoot 
 him "). The better way was social excommunication, for which, as Mr. 
 Dillon held, the law could not punish them. Five of Mr. Dillon's speeches 
 were quoted, Mr. Reid citing passages in which Mr. Dillon denounced the 
 reporting of bogus outrages intended to excite English feeling against Ireland; 
 and in which he emphatically repudiated the assertion of the League's enemies 
 that the movement was mixed up with crime. This tit for tat method of reading 
 
 • extracts was again followed in the case of Mr. T. D. Sullivan's speeches, Sir 
 Henry James showing how Mr. Sullivan advocated such ubiquitous organization 
 
 • of the League as would necessitate the employment of increased police forces ; 
 and Mr. Lockwood showing how Mr. Sullivan denounced, in the strongest 
 language, crime of every kind. A speech of P. J. Gordon's was read, but 
 Mr. T. Harrington pointed out that when the speech was delivered Gordon 
 was under arrest, and also that the speech was delivered from a railway 
 carriage window, and not at a League meeting. In his rambles over eight years 
 of Irish oratory. Sir Henry James quoted a speech in which Admiral Hewett's 
 offer of a thousand pounds for the capture of Osman Digna was mentioned, 
 and a comparison drawn between the Soudanese Arabs and the oppressed 
 population of Ireland. Sir James Hannen mildly remarked that he could not 
 see the relevancy of the Osman Digna mcident. " Neither do I, my lord," 
 
 -.exclaimed Mr. Lockwood, in his prompt, downright way. 
 
ii6 Wednesday] Diary of [Jcin. 30.^ 
 
 FORTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 January 30. 
 
 The dreary reading of the speeches of 1885-6 occupied half the day. Among- 
 the principal speeches quoted were some by Mr. Davitt and Mr. Biggar, the 
 former of whom advised the Clare tenants to barricade their houses, and the 
 latter of \\hom was represented to have said that land-grabbers were, in his- 
 opinion, greater criminals than most who perished on the scaffold, and that 
 the tenants, when they saw a land-grabber enter chapel, should " leave him 
 alone in a corner by himself, for then his life would become intolerable, and he 
 would be glad to side at last with the tenants who were fighting against im- 
 possible rents." 
 
 After the reading of the extracts was done with, Mr. W. Hanley, landlord,, 
 agent, battering-ram supervisor all in one, was called to testify to what, in his 
 opinion, was the effect of Land League preaching on forty-two different estates 
 with which he was connected. 
 
 Mr. Hanley lived nearThurles, in Tipperary. Up to 1879 he had been, he 
 said, en excellent terms with his tenants ; and, according to his own view of 
 the matter, with good reason, seeing that only two years ago the Land Com- 
 missioners, instead of making reductions, made large additions to the rents of 
 a number of tenants. 
 
 It was in 1 88 1 that Mr. Hanley and his tenants fell out — immediately 
 after the first Land League branch was established in his neighbourhood. 
 His owTi tenants, twelve or so in number, came in a body and demanded' 
 a reduction of 20 per cent. " Many of them were much better off than I 
 was myself," said the witness. Then he described how four of them came 
 to him in secret to pay their rents in full. Others, he said, asked him 
 to serve them with writs, and even to seize their cattle. He had to serve the 
 writs himself, as nobody would do it for him. The only servant who remained 
 with him had his house fired into. More than forty landlords, giving up the 
 attempt to collect their rents, employed Mr. Hanley as their agent. He must 
 have discharged his duties resolutely, for he was boycotted many years, and 
 when necessaiy he superintended in person the play of the battering-ram upon 
 the non-paying tenants' houses — "forts" as they are called all over disturbed: 
 Ireland. 
 
 Once or twice in the course of his examination-in-chief Mr. Hanley 
 spoke of the secret visits of some of his tenants. One of them, said the 
 witness, told him that eviction would pay him better than possession, because 
 of what he would " make " from the League. Another tenant met him 
 secretly in somebody's bedroom. The somebody was a publican ; and after 
 the man paid his " rint " he became conscious of a " wakeness," so that INIr. 
 Hanley had to fortify him with brandy. But Mr. Hanley's opinion was that 
 the man's weakness arose from fear of the leaguers. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell cross-examined Mr. Hanley. It now appeared that the 
 tenants whose rents the Land Commissioners increased in 1887 were lease- 
 holders. " Can you mention," asked Sir Charles Russell, "a single instance, 
 on those forty properties, of a yearly tenant having his rent raised on going 
 into court ? " ^Ir. Hanley could not recollect one. Mr. Hanley then stated 
 that many of the yearly tenants were given twenty to twenty-five and even 
 thirty per cent, reduction, without going before the Commissioners. "I don't 
 know," said Sir Charles Russell, "but it is attributed to you that you have a 
 "battering-ram on your premises." "I have," said Mr. Hanley. " Is that to 
 assist in battering down the houses of tenants who are to be evicted? " *' It 
 is to save time," was the rt ply. "And for motives of humanity ? " '*Not_ 
 
Thursday^ the Parnell Commission. [Jan. 31. 117 
 
 ■exactly. But I may say that I attend all evictions on my property to 
 prevent outrage." " How do you manage the battering-ram — by machinery?" 
 ^' It is drawn by horses." " Do you mean to say that the Land League was 
 -the source of all the mischief .?" Mr. Hanley admitted that he did not. In 
 .fact, he supposed that it began three years before the rise of the League ; in 
 •the depression of 1876, or of 1877, or 1878 ; but he added that the people in 
 his district did not appear to be affected by the distress of those years. He 
 also admitted that the bulk of the people in his neighbourhood (landlords, 
 .agents, and their dependants excepted) were members of the League. 
 
 FORTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 January 31. 
 
 The first witness of the day was Constable Farrell. He gave some additional 
 -testimony about the murder of Lord Mountmorres, on which, it will be 
 -remembered, the informer Burke has already been examined. Constable 
 Farrell was stationed in September, 18S0, at Clonbur (near which Lord Mount- 
 morres lived). Constable Farrell remembered that Burke the informer and 
 Sweeney were working together on the day of the murder, and on the spot 
 ■ described by Burke. As for Carney's public-house, at which it was said the 
 murderers and their confederates met before the crime. Constable Farrell 
 .-stated that it was usually frequented by leaguers. On the day after the 
 murder, said the witness, there was a Land League meeting in Clonbur 
 market-place, and the processionists marched round Carney, carrying their 
 rbanners, and also what Mr. Farrell called imitation guns. 
 
 Imitation guns ? What were they ? Sir Charles Russell asked the witness. 
 Mr. Farrell explained that they were " wooden " guns, " imitation " guns, he 
 •repeated ; and that there must have been forty or fifty of them in the pro- 
 •cession. But was the procession glorifying Carney? Not necessarily, for, in 
 reply to his cross-examiner, Mr. Farrell said that Carney was only one of a 
 crowd round which the procession was marching. " Perhaps you might have 
 been in the centre yourself? " Sir Charles suggested. Then followed sonle 
 questions with a view to finding out whether, quite apart from the League, 
 Lord Mountmorres had done anything to make himself unpopular. To which 
 questions Constable Farrell replied he had heard that Lord ^lountmorres 
 .had boasted of his intercourse with the '*' Castle," and also that Lord Mount- 
 morres had been under police protection since August, 1879 — ^ year, or more, 
 before the foundation of the Clonbur branch of the Land League. Then 
 came Mike Roche. The object of the examination of this witness, also, was 
 to test the evidence of an informer — Buckley. Mike Roche (who after his 
 . examination-in-chief said that he had read part of Buckley's evidence) now 
 corroborated Buckley's story about his attempt to shoot him (Roche), and about 
 Buckley's revolver "clicking " repeatedly, that is, missing tire. Mike Roche 
 described himself as an ex-leaguer who had been boycotted for having paid a 
 rent of which the League disapproved. He was an amusing example of a 
 Kerry witness. He spoke with fearful rapidity, and in a monotonous voice, 
 unmodulated, save for the high shrill key in which he ended every sentence. 
 He spoke excitedly, swaying from side to side, emphasizing his periods with a 
 ■sharp little nod, and, on the smallest provocation, running off into personal re- 
 miniscences and family histories, fie narrated the Buckley episodes as excitedly 
 .as if the terrible Buckley were at that moment behind the witness-box with 
 
ii8 Friday] Diary of [Feb. !► 
 
 his revolver "clicking." Mike rapped off his answers before the questions. 
 were ended — a trick against which Sir Charles Russell, when his time came to 
 cross-examine, protested in vain. " ^Vho brought you to London?" asked 
 Sir Charles Russell, " A summons," was the sharp reply ; and on the instant 
 he searched his pockets. He had already undone the buttons of his waistcoat 
 when he stopped short, on being told the thing was not wanted. " Perhaps, 
 you could show us your five pounds?" Sir Charles suggested. " No," quoth 
 Mike; "but I'll show you my return ticket;" and he wriggled about 
 desperately amongst his pockets. As nobody wanted to see his return ticket,. 
 Mike rushed off at full speed through a domestic tragi-comedy about a gate 
 (the same gate of which informer Buckley had spoken long since). But Mike- 
 had one virtue. When pulled up in his gallops he came to a sudden dead-stop- 
 — always ; but, then, when the chance offered away he went again. Sir- 
 Charles Russell, reading from a printed document, asked him whether it was; 
 not the fact that he had been expelled from the Land League for having; 
 given information to the police. He emphatically, indignantly denied this, 
 insisting that he had been expelled because he had paid his rent. At the 
 same time he admitted that there had been rumours of his having given, 
 information. He could not recollect whether Buckley had seized him whem 
 about to shoot him. [Buckley said he seized Roche by the collar.] He next 
 confessed, rather by accident, that Buckley and himself had been at enmity 
 long before the shooting business, and that Buckley had been twice fined by 
 the magistrates for assaulting him. One "assault" was described as a. 
 " shove," A\hich cost Buckley half-a-crown. "Now, on your oath," asked 
 vSir Charles Russell, "was Buckley a leaguer?" Mike could not say that he 
 was. By his own accounts of himself Mike could scarcely have been a flawless, 
 citizen. He was under police protection, and yet his protectors were always, 
 putting him under lock and key, on charges of inebriety. How many times?" 
 Could" not tell? Twenty-eight? Didn't know. JNIike looked slightly dis- 
 gusted when Sir Charles Russell asked him whether Buckley might not have 
 been shamming. " I swear on my solemn oath that Buckley did his best to 
 shoot me dead on the shpot." 
 
 Mike was followed by a witness named Sheehy, who said that he saw 
 Buckley with a revolver on the day on which Mike was "clicked " at. Sheehy 
 had a poor opinion of Buckley. He would scarcely believe Buckley on his. 
 oath, and he said that Buckley was regarded as a nuisance in the neighbourhood. 
 By the way, there was just one other detail in which Mike's story differed from 
 informer Buckley's. Buckley said his pistol did not go off, even once. Mike 
 now said he heard a bullet whiz past his ear ; at any rate, he thought he heard 
 one. But he allowed that it might have been an imaginary bullet. Mike ran 
 off to the magistrate's, and the magistrate was so perplexed by Mike's variations, 
 of his story that, instead of putting the clicking Buckley under lock and key,, 
 he bound him over, as Mike said, " to keep the pace, your lordships." 
 
 FORTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 February i. 
 
 In the meantime, Divisional-Magistrate Captain Slack had gone to Ireland for 
 his private documents, from which he said be would prove causal connection, 
 between outrages and League speeches. Yesterday he re-entered the witness- 
 box, bringing with him his papers, in folio volumes neatly covered with brown. 
 
Friday] the Parnell Coimnission. [Feb, i. 119 
 
 paper. A methodical man was Captain Slack. He could put his finger, at a 
 moment's notice, upon any newspaper cutting (and his written comments upon 
 the same). And he did it through the yawning half-hours. Except the judges, 
 and the counsel immediately engaged, none paid the smallest attention to 
 Captain Slack's extracts ; but Captain Slack went through his work smilingly, 
 with an expression of boundless satisfaction. To-day, he reappeared for further 
 cross-examination. 
 
 Mr. Davitt took Captain Slack in hand, with a series of common-sense and, 
 at the same time novel, questions in arithmetic. Captain Slack admitted that 
 in the six counties with which he had been specially connected there must have 
 been at least three hundred League branches. Counting the average number 
 of speeches at these branches there must have been delivered during the years 
 of which Captain Slack took note one hundred and forty-four thousand 
 speeches ! But as Captain Slack cited only twenty-four cases of what he 
 regarded as crime resulting from inflammatory speeches of the League, "did 
 not that give a very small percentage of outrages ? " Mr. Davitt asked. 
 Captain Slack after a pause rephed that it did, but, he added, " I only brought 
 forward those cases as examples. I could bring others." 
 
 Mr. Reid then asked Captain Slack if he could produce an exhaustive list of the 
 cases upon which he relied for proof of his proposition that outrages had been 
 caused by League speeches. To this Captain Slack replied that the production 
 would entail " interminable " labour ; it would necessitate his going through 
 years of records, and producing witnesses to prove every incident. The discus- 
 sion ended with an emphatic declaration on the part of Sir Charles Russell 
 that as a matter of fact Captain Slack's evidence was merely a statement of 
 outrages with the motives suggested. 
 
 And now for the first time an English police-constable stepped into the 
 witness-box. This was Head-Constable Wilkinson, of Rochdale, who described 
 the seizure at the Navigation Inn, Rochdale, in February, 1881, of documents 
 in the possession of John Walsh, an organizer of the English branches of the 
 Irish League. Among the documents seized was a green card containing, in 
 one column, a list of English towns designated by letters of the alphabet ; 
 while a second column was headed " men," a third "short furniture," a fourth 
 " long furniture," and another " pills." (The alleged meaning of " furniture " 
 is firearms, and of " pills " ammunition.) Another paper found among Walsh's 
 documents was entitled " Cash received from F. Byrne from INIarch 13th." 
 There were also papers containing accounts for travelling expenses and salary, 
 and again, a copy of the rules of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. 
 
 Next came Inspector Tunbridge, of Scotland Yard, who produced a letter 
 alleged to be John Walsh's. The letter was dated Havre, March 22, 1881, 
 and was addressed to the Secretary of the Bank of England, informing the 
 secretary of Walsh's loss of two ten-pound notes in Havre, and asking that 
 payment of them should be stopped. Mr. Tunbridge proved that one of the 
 lost notes had formerly been in Byrne's possession. Further evidence regard- 
 ing the note was given by a clerk of the Pearl Insurance Office, who declared 
 that he had seen, in a cheque-book at the office, the counterfoil of a cheque in 
 payment for which the note had been accepted. The same witness also said 
 that he had often seen Frank Byrne in the office with Mr. Foley, the manager, 
 who is now a member of Parliament. Next, one or two witnesses followed 
 each other rapidly. Sergeant Sheridan, of the Dublin police force, proved the 
 warrant which had been issued for the arrest of Walsh, and he stated that the 
 charge against him was that he had been accessoiy before the fact to the murder 
 of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke. Mr. William Jackman, another 
 police-officer, from Bradford, stated that he had seen Walsh attending meetings 
 of the Land League and the Fenian Brotherhood in Bradford in 1881-3. 
 Constable Coulston, of the same town, corroborated the foregoing testimony. 
 
120 Tuesday] Diary of [Feb, 5. 
 
 and then said that he had found in the house of a man named Tobin some 
 boxes containing forty revolvers and a quantity of cartridges. Tha witness had 
 frequently seen Tobin in Walsh's company. Then Mr. Withers, chief-constable 
 of Bradford, followed with a statement to the effect that after Tobin's arrest in 
 November, iSSi, he had discovered a quantity of documents in his house. At 
 this point Sir Charles Russell observed that Tobin was not even mentioned in 
 the Attorney-General's "particulars,"' and that the man's movements were 
 beyond the scope of tbe inquiry. The Attorney-General argued that Walsh 
 and Tobin were working together " in one organization." 
 
 Sir Charles Russell — But which organization ? 
 
 The Attorney-General— They are one and the same. When we have shown that Tobin was 
 in connection with Walsh, when we have shown that there was a deposit of arms in Tobin's house, 
 and that Walsh, a Land League organizer, was engaged in depositing arms about, we say the 
 documents are admissible. 
 
 Sir James Ilannen, however, ruled that the Attorney-General was entitled to 
 put in the documents. On the reading of one of them. Sir Charles Russell 
 warmly protested. Here, he said, was a letter without even a date. And were 
 they to go back to the year 1866 ? 
 
 The President — I must protest against the way in'which you conduct this case. Sir Charles 
 W^e have given our decision. We are not infallible ; but as we have given our decision it must 
 not be re-opened again. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell — I don't wish to re-open it. I say that we did not know of the contents 
 of this letter until it was read, and that now it is read I am entitled to ask your lordships to 
 consider the point again. 
 
 The President— Instead of asking us you address us in an aggressive mode that is most 
 unbecoming. 
 
 Sir Charks Russell — I don't wish to appear unbecoming [or aggressive. But I feel very 
 strongly upon the point. 
 
 Chief-Constable Withers, continuing his evidence, stated that Tobin was in 
 1SS2 sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for treason-felony. 
 
 FORTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 February 5. 
 
 To-day the Attorney-General entered upon the American part of his case. An 
 interesting personage is Honore Le Caron, private and subsequently major in 
 the Northern army during the great war, and afterwards, and now — according 
 to his own account — a high and responsible officer in the Fenian organization 
 which still dreams of overthrowing the power of Great Britain. His name is 
 French ; but the man himself, the "Senior Guardian " of Fenian Camp No. 
 463 (now altered to 421), is an Englishman, v.hose birthplace is Colchester. 
 ]\Iy baptismal name is Thomas ^Miller Beach, said the major. He paused at 
 each of his three names, pronouncing them with slow, distinct emphasis, and 
 nodding his head as if to punctuate them. Major Le Caron is short and slightish 
 in build ; erect — like a soldier — and imperturbably cool ; he has a lofty 
 forehead, and smallish, alert e5'es, which look straight. The major's is one 
 of the boniest faces in or out of the New World, — a death's-head with a tight 
 skin of yellow parchment. With his arms folded over his chest — like another 
 short man, the great Napoleon — he raps out his answers, short, sharp. "Yes, 
 yes," he says, snappishly sometimes, pronouncing it "yus." 
 
 Having risen to the rank of major in the Federal army, Major Le Caron 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Coininission. [Feb. 5. 
 
 121 
 
 became a member of the American Fenian organization in 1865. An Irishman 
 named O'Neill was, it appeared, the first who made overtures of membership 
 to Le Caron. The Colchester Englishman turned his information about 
 his fellow Fenians to a use they were not dreaming of. The Fenians 
 "raided" Canada twice, the second time in 1870, and, said the major, 
 ^' I communicated every detail to the Canadian Government." He made this 
 •confession with an unembarrassed promptitude and candour that considerably 
 .amused his audience. "Both expeditions were lamentable failures," added 
 the major, with a little toss of the head. Of course, for, according to jMajor 
 Le Caron, the " Colonials '"' had a smart man in their intelligence department. 
 Major Le Caron was, he said, in a good position to know the secrets of the 
 Fenian organization ; for he became, in the summer of 1868, one of its 
 militaiy organizers. An ex-major of the Federal army he became a major in 
 the " Army of the Irish Republican Brotherhood," and his name was still on 
 .its "pay list." 
 
 About five years after the second of the "lamentable failures," the Fenian 
 Brotherhood was, said the wdtness, re-organized. And Major Le Caron promptly 
 -communicated details to the English Government. "And you received 
 instructions from the Government ? " " Yus." " And you joined the re-orga- 
 nized body? " " Yus." The purpose of this new organization was to unite all 
 the Fenians in America, Canada, AustraHa, Great Britain, Ireland — throughout 
 the world, in fact — against England. It was a sort of watchword with this re- 
 organized party, that England's trouble was Ireland's opportunity : the new 
 body was to seize opportunities of siding with England's enemies. The 
 American Clan-na-Gael Society was a section of this world-wide organization, 
 Avhich had its "revolutionary fund," and its " skirmishing fund," from which — 
 to cite a single example of its method of work — Mr. O'Kelly, ]\I.P., had drawn 
 funds for the purpose of buying the arms which he was shipping to Ireland. In 
 America, this organization was divided into " camps," and Major Le Caron 
 was made senior guardian of Camp 463. At the head of the organization was 
 a directory, the members of which were representatives from the districts. 
 This United Brotherhood was known sometimes as the " U.B.," sometimesas 
 the " V.C." And here the Fenian major explained the nature of the Fenian 
 ofiicial cipher — not a very occult cipher, it would seem. The cipher was 
 -devised by substituting for each letter of the alphabet the letter immediately 
 succeeding it. Thus " V.C." means " U.B.," the United Brotherhood. Thus, 
 : again, the word Ireland is spelled, in American Fenianese, JSFMBOE. 
 According to the above formula, " I.R.B.," meaning Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood, should be spelled, in Fenianese, "J.S.C" 
 
 " I still hold the position of senior Camp Guardian," said Major Le Caron, 
 folding his arms quietly. This amused Major Le Caron's hearers, and they 
 were still more amused when he explained that the election to Camp Guardian- 
 . ships were made annually, and that "yesterday" was the election day for the 
 year 1889. Major Le Caron identified a copy of the new Fenian Constitution, 
 which the Attorney-General handed over to him. One of its chief articles was 
 that the independence of Ireland must be won by arms. An official and 
 member of the " U.B." (V.C), he knew who the active members of the V.C. 
 were— men such as Sullivan, Finerty, Judge Moran, Hynes, Devoy, Carroll, 
 Breslin, and others. The U.B., otherwise the V.C, had its "skirmishing" 
 and " revolutionary " funds, and the trustees of the skirmishing fund in 1887 
 were Breslin, Devoy, Carroll, Reynolds, Rossa, Austin Ford, T. C. Lubie, and 
 'T. F. Burke. The purpose of the Skirmishing Fund was to strike the enemy 
 "" wherever and whenever he could be found," 
 
 Devoy, he said, visited Ireland in 1879 for the purpose of inspecting the 
 Fenian organization there. He said that Devoy on his return to America — 
 July, 1879— was met by delegates from all the United Brethren districts in 
 
122 Tuesday] Diary of [Feb. 5^ 
 
 America, to whom he made a report of his Irish visit. A copy of this report 
 was read by the Attorney-General, who spent twenty minutes in reading it. At 
 this meetinj^ of delegates, said the witness, Ilynes proposed a resolution to the 
 effect that the independence of Ireland was to be won only by force of arms. 
 Then he told a story about Mr. O'Kelly's position in the organization: Mr. 
 O'Kelly was one of the agents of the revolutionary directory, in the task of 
 procuring arms and shipping them oft" to Ireland. " I know," repeated the 
 major, emphatically, "that Mr. O'Kelly had money from the skirmishing 
 fund." Again, he said, when Mr. Dillon, Miss Parnell, and Mr. Parnell visited 
 America at that time, they were taken in hand " exclusively" by the section of 
 the revolutionary body known as the Clan-na-Gael. 
 
 Proceeding with his story, Major Le Caron gave a series of particulars which 
 he said were confided to him by his colleagues in the Fenian organization — 
 Devoy, and a man named Pat Mellady. Devoy had, he said, remarked to him 
 in 1880 that, as the Irish Land League had already received money enough for 
 its open work, the time had come for looking after their secret, or revolutionary 
 methods. He was told at that time by his fellow Fenian Sullivan that a man 
 named ^Yheeler had invented a hand grenade which was composed of some 
 substance far more destructive than anything yet known ; that a dozen of these 
 grenades could be carried in a satchel ; and that the fuses were so arranged 
 as to enable the man who fired them to make good his escape before the 
 explosion. In i88i, the major continued, I came to Europe with two sealed 
 packets in my possession, one for Pat Egan, and the other for John O'Leary, 
 both of whom were at that time in Paris. John O'Leary was the accredited 
 agent of the U.B. and the I.R.B. Pat Egan, besides being a Land Leaguer,, 
 was a Fenian Brother. So was Mr. O'Kelly, ]M.P. The Irish Land League 
 and the Brotherhood were, the witness again affirmed, inter-connected ; and 
 he himself had been a local treasurer of the League in America. 
 
 And now Major Le Caron came to the most interesting part of his very long 
 and extraordinarily detailed and precise narrative. Introducing himself to 
 Egan, the treasurer of the Land League in Paris, he was "cordially received " 
 by him. He saw Egan constantly for a period of about two weeks. "I had 
 his entire confidence," said the major; he emphasized the adjective, and his 
 audience, now extremely attentive, laughed a little. Egan — so ran the story — 
 told all about his work as a Fenian Brother in Dublin. " I am a Land Leaguer 
 to-day," said Egan, " and I shall be something else when the occasion comes. 
 Meanwhile I cannot see why both organizations (the Land League and the- 
 Brotherhood) should not work together, the one openly, the other secretly. 
 Parnell himself is a revolutionist to the backbone." All this the witness 
 promptly ran off", as if he were recollecting the exact words spoken in Paris 
 eight years ago. Then he went on to throw an entirely novel light upon Mr. 
 Parnell himself, and to tell us something about Mr. Parnell's failure to find 
 admission to the Fenian Brotherhood. It was Egan who told him all about it. 
 Said Egan, the Brotherhood in Ireland was at that time in such a state of 
 disorganization that we thought Mr. Parnell would value it all the more highly 
 if he continued to see it only from the outside ; so the Fenians refused to have 
 him among them. As another instance of the "entire confidence " which Egan 
 placed in his visitor from America, Egan told him how the Fenian-leaguers, 
 or leaguer-Fenians, had helped the Boers in their fight with England. They 
 did it by giving Land League money to a company of Dutch officers who left 
 Europe to assist their kith and kin in South Africa. They did it, that is to say, . 
 through Mr. Pat Egan, the Land League secretary. In Paris, also, he met Mr.. 
 John O'Connor (not the M.P.), who was at that time variously known as "Dr. 
 Clarke" and "Dr. Kinealy," and who was engaged, under the American: 
 Fenian organizer O'Lear)' already named, in shipping arms to Ireland. The 
 major spent two weeks in Paris, and two more in London, where he met Mr.. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Feb. 6. 123 
 
 Parnell. He was introduced to ]\Ir. Parnell in the lobby of the House of 
 Commons, and he now described, with an accuracy really surprising, the 
 turnings and windings of the corridors through which he followed ^Ir. Parnell 
 for the purpose of an undisturbed and confidential talk. This introduction 
 took place in April, i88i. On another occasion, in the House of Commons, 
 he met ]\Ir. O'Kelly, who said that the American organization should " do^ 
 something" to bring itself " into line " with the League, and who described 
 the O'Leary (named above) as "an old fossil." Then Mr. Parnell saw the 
 major, and Mr. Parnell said to him confidentially, " You Americans furnish us. 
 with the sinews of war ; if we don't act properly you can stop the supplies." 
 
 According to Le Caron, Mr. Parnell at this same interview declared that he 
 bad *' ceased to believe that anything but force would bring about the redemp- 
 tion of Ireland ; and he told me he did not see why a successful insurrectionary 
 movement should not be inaugurated " in the country. Then Major Le Caron 
 returned to America, where he at once put himself into communication with 
 Breslin, who was one of the three members of the revolutionary committee, 
 and to whom he delivered messages from Mr. Parnell, one of the messages 
 being a request that a member of the committee, Devoy, should come over to 
 this country to confer with the League chief. The major said that among the 
 members of the U.B. and R.LB. brotherhoods in America, there was a grow- 
 ing dissatisfaction at the " lukewaimness of the Irish Land League." But 
 since 1881, added the Avitness, there has been a perfect understanding between 
 the American organization and the Parnellite party in Ireland. INIajor Le 
 Caron's story occupied the entire day. 
 
 FORTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 February 6. 
 
 It is easy to see that the present production of American evidence bears- 
 directly upon "the letters." One of the Attorney-General's purposes waste 
 show^ that the letter of the 15th of ]May, 1882, was just what nr'ght have 
 been expected under those circumstances of intimate relationship between the 
 Clan-na-Gael and other United Brethren of America, the Republican Brother- 
 hood of Ireland, and the Land Leaguers, which the examination of Le Caron 
 was meant to establish. 
 
 Shortly after midday there was an inrush of visitors. A buzz of excitement 
 passed over the assemblage as Mr. Parnell entered. The collar of his hght- 
 brown overcoat was raised up to his ears. He carried with him a bundle of 
 papers and a black bag. His thin, pale face wore, only too plainly, the signs 
 of ill-health. But the eyes had lost none of their brightness. As the Irish 
 chief came up, slowly, through the crowd, Le Caron just glanced at him, 
 curiously. 
 
 Le Caron gave some details about the Am.erican " Conventions." In the 
 secret sessions preceding the open meetings no members were known by their 
 own names. They were all members of the Clan-na-Gael, and they were 
 known by cipher names. ^Yhy was this ? Le Caron was asked. Because the 
 " dynamite campaign " was one of the questions on hand. 
 
 Major Le Caron proceeded, in answer to the Attorney-General, to give an 
 account of the Chicago Convention of 1 88 1. The American United Brethren 
 and the Fenian Brotherhood in Ireland — the former of which had for it 
 
124 Wednesday] Diary of [Feb, 6. 
 
 managing body the " Revolutionary Committee," and the latter the *' Supreme 
 Council " — were referred to throughout Major Le Caron's evidence as the 
 ■" V.C-" The president, it was said, spoke about the "strained relations" 
 between the two associations — the American and the Irish — some of the more 
 impatient souls in the former body being of the opinion that the Irish Fenians 
 were too much influenced by the Land League, whose objects were not 
 sufficiently " revolutionary." Others, again, were content to accept the Land 
 League such as it was, considerir^g it to be an " educational influence " in 
 the general national movement in which all the revolutionary societies and 
 brotherhoods were engaged. 
 
 The Attorney-General read extracts from the various departmental reports 
 submitted to and considered at the secret convention — Le Caron, in his 
 capacity of "senior guardian " of a United Brethren " camp," and delegate to 
 the convention, identifying the documents, and explaining points as the 
 Attorney-General went on with his reading. There were reports on the 
 finance of the " U.B.," ah'as " V.C. ; " on its foreign relations ; on its chemical, 
 engineering, mining business ; on its military committees, and so on. One of 
 the resolutions passed at this secret convention was, said the witness, concerned 
 with the retaliatory measures of the united organizations. The "principle of 
 retaliation " was recognized after a discussion in which it was argued that the 
 principle of international arbitration, for which England had been so power- 
 fully instrumental in procuring the adhesion of the Great Powers, must inter- 
 fere with retaliatory measures, inasmuch as it was part of the " U.B." scheme 
 to side with Powers with which England might be at war. The witness 
 explained that this resolution was preceded by a discussion in which remarks 
 were made about the dilatory conduct of the " Revolutionary Directory (or 
 Committee) in America." 
 
 The Attorney-General proceeded next with details about the application of 
 part of the " Skirmishing Fund" to the construction of what IMajor Le Caron 
 called " submarine vessels." ^Yhat were they? They were a kind of torpedo, 
 said Major Le Caron, and the witness then told his circumstantial story about 
 the two years' work of Mr. Breslin, in devising a new kind of torpedo 
 boat, intended for the destruction of British commerce. The torpedo boat, 
 said Major Le Caron, "turned out a failure." Examined on the details of 
 the Skirmishing Fund accounts, which were produced in court, the witness 
 described how some of the money was paid to Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., for the 
 jiurchase of arms. Mr. O'Kelly, the witness stated, was a member of the 
 American "U.B." {alias "V.C), and the Irish "I.R.B." and Mr. John 
 O'Connor, ]\LP., was, as the Attorney-General held, engaged with Mr. O'Kelly 
 in America at that time in forwarding arms to Ireland. 
 
 At this stage, when the witness was about to quote w^hat Mr. John O'Connor 
 had told him about Irish-American relationships. Sir Charles Russell interfered 
 with an objection to the effect that such second-hand information could not be 
 regarded as evidence. The objection was, however, overruled by their lord- 
 ships, and the witness then stated briefly that the sum and substance of Mr. 
 John O'Connor's statements to him was that the home organizations and the 
 American " U.B." understood each other sufficiently w^ell. Amongst other 
 persons whom Le Caron said he had met at the convention was W. M. 
 Lomasney, — one of the men, said Le Caron, who was some years after sent 
 on dynamite campaign business to London. It was supposed that he was 
 blown up in the attempt to destroy London Bridge. At all events he 
 " never returned " to America, and "the organization is now supporting his 
 wife, children, and father." 
 
 Then Major Le Caron proceeded to tell whom he saw at the open meeting. 
 He saw Mr. T. P. O'Connor and Mr. T. M. Healy, and he thought it was 
 •owing to the former's • influence that a representative of the militant party — 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Feb. 6. 125. 
 
 a Protestant clergyman named Betts — was elected chairman in preference to- 
 a member of the moral suasion party. At any rate, he thought it was Mr. 
 O'Connor who proposed that the objection to Mr. Betts should be with- 
 drawn. Said the major, there were "dynamite priests," all the same, among 
 the clericals. 
 
 Then the witness gave some account of the report of the convention, whicli 
 was distributed among the local leaders of the U.B. in the early part of 1882. 
 Major Le Caron being a " senior guardian " of a U.B. camp, received his copy 
 of the head -quarters circular as a matter of course, and as soon as he received 
 it he despatched it to the home Government. "All these documents, I 
 believe,"' said Sir Richard Webster, "were sent home soon after you had 
 taken a copy of them." " In every instance," was the prompt reply. " Have 
 they been in your possession since you sent them?" "Never." 
 
 Le Caron next gave some particulars respecting the Philadelphia Convention 
 of April, 1883, which was attended by Pat Egan, who had arrived in America 
 a few weeks before, and who was the ex-treasurer of the Irish Land League. 
 The opening meeting was, as usual, preceded by a secret meeting, to which, 
 only those were admitted who were members of the Clan-na-Gael Society. At 
 this secret meeting, said the Major, instructions were laid down for the 
 guidance of the "skirmishing" members, and the resolution was passed to 
 change the American branch of the Land League into the National League, 
 a proposal which was adopted at the open meeting. The great purpose of the 
 Philadelphia meeting was the unification, for political purposes, of the Irish 
 race throughout the world, and the witness attended all the meetings in a 
 double capacity, as guardian of his U.B. camp, and as a representative of the- 
 American Land League (now to become the National League). He also 
 attended all the preHminary secret meetings. Did Egan attend the secret 
 meetings? he was asked. He did not ; but, said Le Caron, he asked me to tell 
 him all that was said and done at these secret meetings, which I did ; the 
 result being that Egan declared that the programme (about skirmishing, and 
 dynamite, and all the rest of it) would be "perfectly satisfactory to all 
 Nationalists." In the report of the convention Egan was described as a 
 personage " second only in importance to Mr. Parnell himself." 
 
 At this stage — it was half-past two o'clock — Sir Henry James took 
 flight to "the restful world." He was comfortably asleep, his left cheek on 
 his elbows, which rested crosswise on the desk. He must have yielded to 
 the steady, long monotone of the Attorney-General, plodding through his 
 convention circulars and convention speeches. Continuing his account of the 
 other Irish visitors besides Egan, the Land League treasurer, and Brennan, 
 the Land League secretary, whom he had seen at Philadelphia, Le Caron 
 named Frank Byrne and Mrs. Frank Byrne. Byrne did not attend the secret 
 meeting, but Brennan did, and, added the witness, he could not have attended 
 unless he was a member of the United Brotherhood. Besides the Byrnes, 
 Egan, and Brennan, there were O'Leary and P. J. Sheridan, and Wright, and 
 Daly from Castlebar. And then the Attorney-General plunged into more 
 U.B. circulars and speeches, and financial statements, the last of which made 
 mention of various sums that had been sent to Mr. Egan in Paris, and to Mr. 
 Parnell, and to Mr. Alfred Webb (one of the Dublin treasurers of the League), 
 and to ]Mr. Davitt, and others. Growing tired, perhaps, of his reading, the 
 Attorney-General took a little rest, and Sir Henry James, aroused from his 
 slumbers, rose up, with his wig slightly awry, and had his turn at the 
 " documents." 
 
 Sir Henry James read with astonishing speed, and nine-tenths of his hearers 
 gossipped. Sir Henry had fifteen minutes of it. He sat down. Sir Richard 
 got up, with another "circular" — date September, 1SS3 — which spoke of the 
 new epoch, the new methods, of the militant Brotherhood. 
 
126 Thursday] Diary of [Feb. 7. 
 
 The writer of the document which Sir Richard Webster was reading invited 
 his readers to " note with pleasure " the fate of informers and spies. Ahnost 
 on the instant the longish, thin, bloodless face of Le Caron wrinkled into 
 a smile. He flushed slightly. He moved about in his seat. He unfolded 
 his arms — which were crossed on his breast — rested one elbow on the ledge of 
 the witness-box, and his head on his hand. 
 
 All this while, loo, another thin, pale face was directed towards Le 
 Caron, and its pair of eyes gazed steadily upon him. The gazer was Mr. 
 Parnell. Le Caron rose up to answer a question or two. He stated, on the 
 authority, as he said, of the President of the U.B., that the Brotherhood had 
 resolved to employ on desperate work, in the future, only men who had no 
 families, and who had been carefully trained in the use of explosives ; and that 
 dangerous operations should be entrusted exclusively to the American 
 Executive (the Revolutionary Directory), because " it had been found im- 
 possible to get the right sort of men in the home organization " (in Ireland). 
 He also said he had learned at this Philadelphia Convention that forty 
 members of the Royal Irish Constabulary had been sent from Ireland to 
 America, in order to gain admission to the organization, and worm out its 
 secrets. The rest of his evidence for the day was occupied with a description 
 of the "split" which took place in the U.B. at the end of 1883, and of the 
 reception accorded in January, 1884, to the two Messrs. Redmond by the 
 American revolutionaries. Among the members of the Committee appointed 
 to conduct the reception were, said the witness, some who were employed in 
 ^like capacity, in honour of Mr. Dillon and Mr. Parnell in 1879-80. 
 
 FORTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 February 7. 
 
 The Attorney-General questioned Le Caron respecting the constitution of the 
 *' U.S.," and the business of the conventions. The " U.S." was one of the 
 two revolutionary organizations into which in 1883 the " U.B.," or United 
 Brethren Society, was split. Having split away from its parent body, this new 
 "U.S." revolutionary society must have a brand-new "constitution "and 
 -symbols of its own. Le Caron, to whom the symbols were as simple as 
 ABC, explained them in court. The three chief " U.S." officials (it is sur- 
 prising they did not call themselves triumvirs) used for joint signatures to their 
 circulars and confidential rescripts the figure of a triangle. The secretary and 
 the treasurer of the U.S. had each his symbol — the former, two squares joined 
 at the corners ; the latter, a cross. On the document which the Attorney- 
 General held in his hand, and which the major interpreted right off, there were 
 nearly twenty of these symbols. It was passed up for the inspection of their 
 lordships. Quite in keeping with the brethren's craze for symbols was 
 their repeated rechristening of themselves. One year they called themselves 
 "U.B.," another year '*U.S." They grew tired of "U.S.," and they 
 ■christened themselves " I. U.B." (Irish United Brethren). At last they repented 
 them of this designation, and solemnly resolved to go back to their old name, 
 ■" U.B.," the United Brethren. This they did at their convention of June, 
 1888. Quite in keeping with all the mysticism and s^mibolism and revised 
 christenings were the grandiloquent departmental titles — " Foreign Affairs " 
 Committees, and War Committees, and all sorts of committees, just as if the 
 Brethren constituted a first-class Power and had a diplomatic status all over 
 the world. This very witness, who started in life as a draper's boy in an 
 
IThursday] the Parnell Commission. [Feb. 7. 127 
 
 I^nglish country town, rose to the rank of " adjutant-general" in the army, or 
 armies, of the Revokitionary Brotherhood. His was the second highest dignity 
 in the revokitionary organization ; and the gallant major, as he told this 
 interesting piece of news, drew himself up, and he folded his arms, like the 
 great Napoleon, in his pictures. 
 
 Speaking of the U.S., the Attorney-General anticipated four years of his 
 story. Major Le Caron was present at the U.S. Convention held at Chicago 
 last June, and there he heard a discussion about the man Lomasney, who was 
 supposed to have been blown to pieces or drowned in the attempt to blow up 
 London Bridge. But Sir Charles Russell, and subsequently Mr. Reid, objected 
 to the witness's giving any indirect testimony of the kind. Mr. Reid remarked 
 that something more solid was required than reports of vague conversations. 
 The Attorney-General, on the other hand, contended that such evidence was 
 useful for the purpose of showing that ]\Ir. Parnell and his associates were 
 knowingly in intercourse with persons engaged in getting up murderous 
 outrages. *' We do not say," argued Sir Richard, " that Mr. Parnell planned 
 murders, but only that he was directly associated with the I.R. B. (Irish 
 Republican Brotherhood), and that the I.R.B. and the U.B. were merely 
 parts of one and the same organization ; and that, though Mr. Parnell knew 
 the characters of the men with whom he was associating, he did not attempt 
 to sever his connection with them." The point was discussed for nearly half 
 :an hour between the Attorney-General and Sir Charles Russell, Sir Henry 
 James and Mr. Reid following their respective principals. Their lordships 
 retired to consider the subject. They returned after an interval of twenty-five 
 minutes. Sir James Hannen then stated the decision he had arrived at. — The 
 ■evidence was admissible, in as far as it referred to persons like Egan and 
 Brennan, who were members of the I.R.B., a body which, as the President 
 remarked, was shown in the evidence to be practically identical with the 
 "*' U.B." The Attorney-General accordingly proceeded to question Major 
 Le Caron about the Lomasney discussion at the convention of 18S8, which 
 'Convention — [that is, the " secret " session preceding the public meeting] — 
 Major Le Caron attended in his capacity as high official of the revolutionary 
 organization. This same Patrick Egan, ex-treasurer of the Irish Land League, 
 was, said the major, present at the debate. The Lomasney question was brought 
 up by the U.S. delegate from Detroit, who enumerated the sums which the 
 Brethren had paid for the maintenance of Lomasney's wife, children, and 
 father. Then, said the major, a resolution was passed directing the U.S. 
 executive to " look after " the Lomasney family. 
 
 Having disposed of the episode of June, i888, the Attorney-General went 
 Ijack to the " U.S." Convention at Boston in August, 1884. According to 
 the usual custom, the Camp Guardians received from headquarters intimation 
 lay circular of the forthcoming convention, in which circular delegates were 
 instructed to vote down all propositions and resolutions against the use of force 
 in the political work of the organization, and were reminded that on this 
 point there must be " no'compromise." 
 
 Then the major entered upon an interesting part of his story. He described 
 how he travelled from Chicago to Boston in the company of Pat Egan, 
 ■ex-treasurer of the Irish Land League, and how Egan told him the circum- 
 stances of his escape from Ireland in March, 1883, almost immediately after 
 Carey turned informer. " Egan told me," said Major Le Caron, "that within 
 twenty minutes of the issue of the Castle warrant for his arrest," he was made 
 fully aware of the fact. Egan, on the instant, " packed up his satchel," 
 destroyed his "I.R.B." documents, including some letters of the informer 
 Carey's ; got his railway ticket through the help of a Belfast friend living in 
 Dubhn, caught the Belfast train by one minute, crossed to England, and took 
 :steamer from Hull to Rotterdam. 
 
128 Thursday] Diary of [Feb. 7^ 
 
 Egan, said Major Le Caron, going on with his story, told me also about the 
 escape of Brennan, who was secretary of the Irish Land League. But here 
 Sir Charles Russell interposed with an ol)jection to the admission of this 
 second-hand evidence. After a brief discussion, the Attorney-General was 
 allowed to proceed, and Major Le Caron, who had meanwhile been requested 
 to leave the witness-box, returned, and took up the thread of his story. 
 Brennan told Egan, said Major Le Caron, how he and Mr. Sexton, "the 
 present Lord Mayor of Dublin," were walking down the Strand together ; how 
 they saw on the newspaper posters the first references to Carey's disclosures ; 
 how they both crossed the street on the instant ; how they disappeared down a 
 lane ; and how Mr. Sexton, taking at Charing Cross Station a ticket for Paris,, 
 proceeded with it to London Bridge Station, where he gave it to Brennan, whO' 
 reached Paris that same night. 
 
 Again, on that railway run to Boston, Mr. Egan and Major Le Caron dis- 
 cussed the future of the organization, the former of the two declaring that the 
 revolutionary work must be prosecuted " on the old lines "— that is, of dynamite 
 and active hostility, on every available method, to England. Then Egan 
 spoke of Dr. Gallagher, the Clan-na-Gael emissary, who, having been arrested 
 in this countr)' in the prosecution of his dynamite designs, got a life sentence 
 for his pains. Gallagher, said Egan, was a "foolish" fellow for having dis- 
 obeyed orders; if he had only waited "twenty-four hours longer," he might 
 have blown up the most splendid buildings in London. How was Gallagher 
 caught ? MacDermott, another spy and informer, got the particulars of 
 Gallagher's dynamite trip to England from Rossa, to whom Gallagher 
 communicated them ; and MacDermott communicated them to the British 
 Government. 
 
 But besides these organizations, which were incessantly re-christening them- 
 selves and tinkering their constitutions, there was a society called the "Irish 
 National League of America," the counterpart of the National League in 
 Ireland, and, like the latter, the successor of a Land League (the Land League 
 of America). The American National League conv.mtion met in Boston, 
 in 1884 ; and the witness stated that the " open " meeting of the convention 
 was preceded by a secret meeting of the Clan-na-Gael, the physical force party, 
 which, according to the witness, controlled the National League. At this 
 National Convention he met Tynan. " Under what name was he introduced 
 to you ? " the Attorney-General asked him. " Under his owm." "Did you 
 know who he was before this?" " Only by reputation." "What had you 
 heard of him?" "I had heard of him as 'Number One.'" Here the- 
 Attorney-General produced a photograph: "Is that Number One?" The 
 major held the portrait at half-arm's length ; he wrinkled his brows ; he looked 
 up with a jerk of his head: "Yes," said he; "a very good photograph." 
 The major stated that eleven out of thirteen of the chief officers of the American 
 " National League " Convention were " I.R.B.'s." 
 
 Le Caron proceeded rapidly with the identification of " U.B." and " U.S.'' 
 circulars, copies of which the major received, as a matter of course, from the 
 revolutionary headquarters, and from which he promptly made copies of his 
 own, for secret transmission to England. He explained that these revolutionary 
 circulars, being secret documents, were read over once or twice to the assembled 
 members of each " camp," by its "senior guardian," and then either destroyed 
 or returned to headquarters. But whenever there were no special orders for 
 destroying or returning them, the major transmitted them to England, thus 
 saving himself the trouble of copying them. And that he had been doing for 
 years. And as the Attorney-General went on enumerating them, one could 
 see what an enormous mass of JNIS. copied from these secret circulars of his 
 unsuspecting colleagues the major had all that time been supplying to the 
 Government officials in London. The major's I^ISS., now reproduced iii 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Conuuission. [Feb. 7. 129 
 
 court, were neatly and carefully written. The circulars generally referred to 
 the expediency of pushing on "active operations." One of August, 1885, 
 gave directions for supplying headquarters with the names of officers and men 
 fit for active service, and spoke, grandiloquently, of preparations for taking the 
 field at a moment's notice. 
 
 At a pause in this identification of the circulars transmitted by him from 
 America to England, the major told a stoiy of the letters of introduction he 
 had received from Mr. Egan to friends in the South, to which he paid a visit in 
 November, 1885. I had previously told Egan, said Le Caron, that I was going 
 on a tour to the South. So the unsuspecting Egan offered to give him 
 *' credentials," " knowing that I could do great service to the cause. At this 
 observation of the major's his audience laughed outright. The major himselt 
 smiled grimly. Then the Attorney-General read the letter of introduction. 
 "It affords me the greatest pleasure," wrote Mr. Patrick Egan, "to intro- 
 duce to you my esteemed friend Dr. Le Caron, of Chicago — who has ever 
 proved himself one of the truest friends of the Irish cause." The majoi 
 smiled. His thin, yellow face rippled, so to speak, into wrinkles. Then he 
 blushed. He appeared to appreciate the fun of the situation. 
 
 " Why did you go to the South? " the Attorney-General asked. Le Caron, 
 making some reply (indistinctly heard) to the effect that he went to take stock 
 of things, threw his head up, crossed his arms behind his back, and resumed 
 his cold, hard, alert, and perfectly self-collected expression. After this amusing 
 little episode the Attorney-General reviewed the secret revolutionary circulars 
 of 1886, 1887, 1888, which, as already explained, were regularly transmitted 
 to the senior guardians of camps, to be read by them once or twice to the 
 assembled members and then destroyed : but which this loyal '* Senior Guardian " 
 copied, and promptly despatched to the Government of the country against 
 which he had, as a Fenian official of the highest rank, sworn implacable 
 hostility. 
 
 When Sir Charles Russell rose, the major pulled himself together, stood bolt 
 upright, crossed his arms over his chest, and gazed at the "terrible cross- 
 examiner." Sir Charles Russell, leaning his right elbow against the back of 
 the bench, asked him in a careless way : 
 
 When did you first go to America? — In 1861. 
 
 What were you before you went to America? — I was first a clerk in a draper's shop in 
 Colchester; and then in shops in London. I was after that a clerk at a bank in Paris. 
 
 What employment did you first get in America? — I joined the army, and continued in it 
 until long after the war. 
 
 What regiment did you join? — First I joined Anderson's troop, which was reserved as a 
 body-guard for General Anderson, and afterwards the body-guard of General Brew. 
 
 When did you leave the army? — In 1866. 
 
 When did you join the Fenian organization? — In the fall of 1865. 
 
 While 3-0U were in the army, then ? — Yes. 
 
 Who invited you to join ? — No one. It was not then a secret society, and any one who 
 expressed sympathy with Ireland could join. I joined purely for the purpose of gaining all 
 the knowledge I could of the organization. 
 
 Did you take an oath?— Yes. It was : " To fight for the cause of Ireland's independence, 
 and the establishment of a Republic in Ireland." 1 also, as an officer, took a military oath of 
 obedience. 
 
 Le Caron then explained that the organization did not become secret until 
 1869. " And you took that oath intending to disclose it ?" asked Sir Charles. 
 *' Yus, yus," the major rapped out, with an emphatic nod of his head. Here 
 the major began to offer an explanation. He appealed to the President to be 
 allowed to be heard. "I never forgot that I was an English subject," he 
 exclaimed, loudly and proudly. As he spoke the words, he threw his chest 
 out, and his head back. He next said that before joining the Fenian Brother- 
 hood he made arrangements for sending home his information. This meant 
 that he had written to his father at Colchester, telling him about the projected 
 Fenian raid into Canada, and that his father gave the information to the Mem- 
 
 10 
 
130 Friday] Diary of [Feb. 8. 
 
 ber for his borough, who communicated it to the home GovermTient. That, he 
 said, was how his intercourse with the Government began. "And you did 
 everything you could to find information in order to betray the Fenian con- 
 fidence ? " " Yus, yus," rapping out the words in his hard, dogged, prompt, 
 cool manner. "You had no sympathy with them?" " Most emphatically, 
 no ; " and the major shook his head, and frowned with an expression of dis- 
 approbation and disgust. " I was a miHtary spy," said he, " in the service of 
 my country." 
 
 In 1868 he first began to correspond directly with the English Government, 
 and since that date he had transmitted "hundreds," "thousands" of commu- 
 nications to London. Through his hands passed all the correspondence which 
 led to the capture of Riel, the Canadian half-caste rebel. 
 
 These commuaications you speak of you have had access to ? — Yes. 
 
 Where?— In this cit3\ 
 
 Where ? — ]My lord, am I to answer that question ? 
 
 (It being decided that he must, 
 
 Major Le Caron then said) I first saw the correspondence in a bundle of documents given 
 me by Mr. R. Anderson, and the synopsis of the case as submitted by me was prepared by 
 myself and Mr. Houston. 
 
 Where did 5-ou first look at them?— At No. 3, Cork Street, W. 
 
 Who is Mr. Anderson? — I know him as an official of the Government. 
 
 Is Mr. Anderson an official at Scotland Yard ?— I know he has been connected with the 
 Home Office. 
 
 Then it was Mr. Anderson who entrusted you with these documents, and you took them to 
 Cork Street, where you " culled " your evidence from them ? — Yes. 
 
 And how many of the documents did you use? About one in every hundred. 
 
 And where are the other 99 per cent, of the documents ? — They are still in my 
 possession. 
 
 Before their lordships decided that the witness must answer " where," there 
 was a lively and amusing questioning of him by process of "elimination." 
 Was it at T/ie Times office}— l>lo. At Mr. Soames' office? — No. At the 
 Home Office ? — No. At each No the wutness smiled, shook his head, and 
 smiled again upon the great Q.C. 
 
 The " defendants," as they are called, were in high glee when the day's pro- 
 ceedings ended. Mr. Davitt, Mr. O'Connor, Mr. Biggar, Mr. Gill, Mr. 
 Lockwood, Sir Charles Russell, and others formed a lively group round Mr. 
 Parnell, w4o came late in the afternoon. For the first time perhaps since the 
 Commission began its very intricate labours, the Parnellites showed a real 
 interest in the proceedings. They looked as if at last they felt the delight of 
 battle — felt that they were coming to close quarters. The expression of bore- 
 dom vanished from their faces ; and at various stages in the proceedings they 
 even became merry. Said an eminent member of the ' ' incriminated " sixty- 
 five, as he was leaving the court, " This evidence will at least have one 
 excellent effect : it will smash up secret societies in the United States." 
 
 FORTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 February 8. 
 
 Throughout the cross-examination Sir Charles Russell addressed Le Caron 
 by his true family name. Beach. The bundle of his letters and documents, 
 which Beach examined in conjunction with Houston, he received in the first 
 place from ]Mr. Anderson, of Scotland Yard. Asked why he went with them 
 
Friday] the Pariidl Commission. [Feb, 8. 131 
 
 to Houston's ho.ise in Cork Street, he replied that a letter of introduction to 
 HDUSton was given to him. This latter, ha said, had no signature. And all 
 Jie could remember of the letter itself was something to this effect : "I intro- 
 duce to you Mr, T. Beach, who will lay the matter before you." 
 
 He next said that in August last he read something about the forth:oming 
 Commission. " I felt," said he, "some interest in the matter, an i the pro- 
 secution was making such a ' lame presentation ' of the case ." Here he 
 
 was stopped by Sir Ciiarles Russell with the remark that that was " rather hard 
 on the Attorney-General." Beach went on with his speech, saying how he had 
 observed that people were claiming the victory for Mr. Parnell over his adver- 
 saries. " Well," said he, " I'll cut the matter short : I wrote and said I was 
 willing to incur every risk, and to give all the evidence I had bearing upon t.ie 
 case." 
 
 Mr. Beach then went on to say that for the first three years of his communi- 
 cation with the Government he received " not a cent " for his services. Then 
 for twenty years had he received the pay of a patriotic spy? "I have not 
 received as much as I have expended," was the answer. Asked whether it was 
 to be inferre:! from his re-possession of his documents that the Government 
 were assenting to his giving information, he replied that he did not understand 
 the matter in that light. Did Mr. Anderson do it on his own account ? No ; 
 *' at my earnest request," said Mr. Beach. Did he kno.v, he was then asked, 
 that Houston was the secretary of a body called the Irish Loyal and Patriotic 
 Union? "Not uatil yesterday," he answered, "was I aware of it." He also 
 stated that when he received the bundle, Mr. Anderson told him he had 
 "culled " out all the docunents which he thought would be useful ; and that out 
 of these selected documents Houston and himself had chosen thirty or forty. 
 
 Asked if the American U.B. (United Brotherhood) had a titular head, Mr. 
 Beach explained that the head of the U.B. was the Executive, which consisted of 
 three members, of whom Pat Egan was one. He stated that six years ago the 
 Brotherhood contained thirty-two thousand members ; that the suppression of 
 the Land League in Ireland in iSSi gave a fresh impetus to the American 
 Brotherhood, which he further declared was " constantly increasing," so that it 
 was " more numerous to-day " than ever it had been. " Tnis," he added, " I 
 could prove from reports which I was sending to Mr. Anderson from time to 
 time." 
 
 You mentioned yesterday sona2thing about the ni2n Mackay, Lomasney, and Dr. Gallagher, 
 and the work for which they were sent to London. Did you yourself take part in any of tne 
 deliberations at which these wicked plots were devised ? — Yes. 
 
 And gave your advice? — I didn't think myself of sufficient importance to oler sag- 
 .^estions. 
 
 Did you assent to them? — I didn't make any objection. 
 
 Then you assented? — In conference — yes. 
 
 Did you know who these men were who were selected for this wicked work ? — I have written 
 jnany letters to England about them directly after the meetings. 
 
 Could you describe them ? — Yes, for I knew them personally. 
 
 I suppose you had other persons in your pay, helping you ? — Not in my pay, sir. I had 
 friends. 
 
 The reading of U.B. circulars, which next followed, and the cross- 
 •examination of the witness as to his personal knowledge of men whom he 
 ■described as being members of the revolutionary organization, were designed 
 to find out whether or not the U.B. instead of being associated with the 
 American branches of the Land and National Leagues, was in reality jealous 
 of them and opposed to them — whether, in short, instead of there being a 
 single American-Irish organization under a variety of names, there were a 
 party of violence and a party of Constitutionahsm. Here, for example, was 
 an extract from a U.B. circular which, in his capacity of " Senior Guardian " of 
 a U.B. " camp," Beach had received from headquarters : 
 
132 Friday] Diary oj [Feb. 8.. 
 
 Lest these organizations may at any time prove dangerous, rather than assist us in our 
 work, we should so secure the control of their management as to disband them when it be- 
 comes necessary^ 
 
 " These organizations refer to the Land League?" asked Sir Charles Russell. 
 "Yes," said the witness. And "dangerous" meant that the newly-formed 
 League (the circular was dated April, iS8o) might cause the withdrawal of sup- 
 port from the secret movement ? " Well," said the witness, " I am willing to put 
 it in that way." "Why 'willing'?" exclaimed Sir Charles Russell somewhat 
 sternly, why "willing" if the thing is true? But there were other reasons,, 
 replied Mr. Beach — for instance, the U.B. feared that the League did not ga^ 
 "far enough." He next stated that up to 1881 there existed in the U.B. 
 organization some diversity of opinion as to the expediency of outrage ; but he 
 said these differences were settled by the Chicago Convention of August, 1881 
 —meaning the secret meeting. Asked whether he himself personally was 
 ever under the impression that the League would prove dangerous to the U.B. 
 organization, he answered that he was not. "Well, then," said Sir Charles 
 Russell, " I shall read part of a circular issued before the January Conven- 
 tion of 1882 : 
 
 It says : "A serious danger menaces us, and calls for "prompt, vigorous action. What we 
 do will depend largely on the good sense, prudence, and tact shown by the members of the 
 V.C.^ This danger comes from the Land League, and maj', we think, be fairlj- attributable 
 to the leaders of that prominent body. At the late Land League Convention a party was- 
 organized, and is nowat work in that body with the object of gradually sapping the founda- 
 tions of cur organization, and building up a power capable cf crushing out the re^•olutionary 
 spirit while studiously working for Ireland." 
 
 " Do you agree with that statement?" asked Sir Charles. " Yes," was the 
 answer ; and Mr. Beach added that the U.B. endeavoured for a time to control 
 the funds and operations of the League— to " boss the show," as Sir Charles sug- 
 gested, making use of an American expression. Mr. Beach was next examined 
 as to the statement which he had previously made, to the effect that Mr. 
 Parnell had asked him to bring about an alliance between the Irish and : 
 American organizations. 
 
 "Now is_there.any circular frcm the V. C. to the senior guardians that has come to your 
 knowledge in which there is, directly or indirectly, anj- reference to this so-called alliance or 
 understanding? — " No.'' 
 
 Mr. Beach was next examined as to his impressions of the characters of £on".e 
 whom he named as being leadirg members of the U.B. Sullivan, he said, 
 was the leading lawyer in Chicago, but he did not associate with the "aris- 
 tocracy" of the place. " But he was worthy of your company?" inquired Sir 
 Charles. "Yes, I found him useful," at which answer there was some laughter 
 in court. As for Finnety, he was "respectable, as far as America was ccn- 
 cerned "■ — apparently meaning gocd enough for Amoica. And Judge Moran ? 
 Also respectable. As for Judge Prendergast, he was considered "very gocd by 
 one party and very bad " by the rival party. Laughter. Frank Agnew was 
 also "a respectable" man. INIr. Michael Bolan was not respectable — he 
 was expelled from the U.B. for appropriating its funds. To cut short Sir 
 Charles Russell's long list of revolutionary U.B.'s, Mr. Berch admitted that 
 they were all respectable nien, with the exception of ISIr. INIichael Bolan. As 
 to the standing of ordinary members of the U.B., Mr. Beach defined good 
 standing as " paying up to date." " A money affair ? " said Sir Charles Russell. 
 " Yes." 
 
 In his examination-in-chief, Le Carcn said that from beginning to end of Mr. 
 Parnell's visit to America in iSSo, the arrangements were " absolutely " in the 
 hands of the U.B. He now fut " substantially " for absolutely, explaining that. 
 
 ^ Cipher for " U.B." United Brethren. 
 
'Tuesday] the Pavnell Coinmission. [Feb. iz. 133 
 
 there was a difference between the circumstances of the eastern tour and the 
 •w'estern tour. Mr. Beach's own personal knowledge was principally of the 
 western tour, and in particular of Mr. Parnell's reception at three places— Cin- 
 cinnati, Chicago, and St. Louis. Sir Charles Russell went through a long list of 
 places where Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon were received in the course of the 
 tlSSo tour— Newark, Philadelphia, Boston, Brooklyn, Providence, &c. — and 
 asked him if any persons in any one of these places had told him that the 
 .arrangements for the Parnell demonstrations were got up by the U.B. ? " No 
 particular individual," was Mr. Beach's reply in each case. " No — particular 
 — individual," he repeated, pausing at each of the three words, and empha- 
 . sizing them. ' ' So that there are only three towns of which you can say, of your 
 own knowledge, that the U.B. controlled the arrangements?" "Yes." " Was 
 .it not a fact that at each town the Mayor received the two Irish members?" 
 "It was." "Were they U.B. 's?" " He could not tell." " Was it not true that 
 _people of the respectable classes greatly preponderated at these demonstra- 
 'tions?" "It was." Then he was asked if the visitors' own account— that 
 -they had been received with distinction by people of all ranks in life, and by 
 -Americans as well as Irish— was correct. And Mr. Beach admitted that it was. 
 
 Coming to the Chicago meeting, Sir Charles read out a list of persons who 
 were on the reception committee ; and Mr. Beach said that not one of them 
 belonged to the U.B. Where, then, was the "dark conclave" that managed 
 lie whole thing? asked Sir Charles; " were you a member of it yourself?" 
 He was not. Bat Mr. Beach still maintained that the U.B. did manage 
 /the Parnell demonstrations. "Three men," said he, controlled them; "they 
 •were Hynes, Finerty, and Sullivan. Finerty himself boasted that he was 
 > chairman of the Committee for arranging Mr. Parnell's western tour ; and I 
 .had information as to how they were manipulating matters."— " No," Mr. 
 Beach replied sharply, when asked by Sir Charles Russell whether he had 
 .anything more to offer in proof of his assertion that Mr. Parnell's western tour 
 was managed by the U.B. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell next came to the conventions of the American Land 
 X,eague. Of the seven which he enumerated, Mr. Beach attended only three* 
 -As to the Chicago Convention of November, 1881, Mr. Beach thought there 
 ■were "hardly" a thousand persons present, and that one-half of them were 
 U.B.'s. It was at the Philadelphia Convention of 1883 that the American Land 
 League was changed into the National League, and Sir Charles now read out 
 to their lordships the constitution of this new body— which embraced national 
 .reform, land reform, local self-government, extension of the Parliamentary and 
 .municipal franchises, and the development of Irish industries and agriculture. 
 Prom this meeting, said Mr. Beach, both O'Donovan Rossa and Finerty 
 were "hounded out." He also declared his belief that of the thirty members 
 present at the committee eight were U.B.'s ; he could state " positively " that 
 .they were. 
 
 FORTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 February 12. 
 
 .Sir Charles Russell's questions about Le Caron's visit to Paris, and about 
 -the ideas of Fenians like O'Leary and Stephens, and about Mr. O'Kelly's and 
 Mr. P. Egan's earlier association with the Irish Republican Brotherhood, were 
 to test the theory of the prosecution, that the Brotherhood and the League 
 -were practically one and the same organization. In 1881, Mr. O'Kelly, M.P., 
 
134 Tuesday] Diary of [Feb. 12, 
 
 whom he met in that year, was not a member of the I.R.B. Mr. O'Kelly had 
 been expelled from it because, said Major Le Caron, he had joined the " open"' 
 movcn ent. Major Le Caron had been told so. Mr. I'at Egan had resigned 
 his membership of the I.R.B., or he had been expelled from it — Le Caron 
 did not know which; nor could he tell when. So far there was hostility- 
 between the Brotherhood and the newly-formed "open" organization, the 
 League. Mr. John O'Leary, whom Le Caron called "a fine old gentleman,' 
 appeared to be an "uncompromising" enemy of the new constitutional or 
 Parnellite movement. Of course, ISIr. O'Leary's fellow Fenian, Head-Centre 
 vStephens, was no less uncompromising. On the other hand, Le Caron did not 
 know whether the Fenian paper of the period, the Dublin Irishvian, was 
 hostile to Mr. Parnell and Mr. O'Kelly. 
 
 Coming to his stoiy of his interview with INIr. Parnell in the House of 
 Commons, IVIajor Le Caron repeated his former statements. He had talked 
 to him, in the lobby, and been introduced to him, "in complimentary 
 terms," as a friend from America. At that time, he admitted, " I understood 
 that the Fenian organization in Ireland was opposed to the Parnell move- 
 ment." 
 
 "And you say," continued Sir Charles, "that ]\Ir. Parnell complained of 
 this opposition? " " Yes." " As a matter of fact, were the sinews of war for 
 the home movement coming largely from America?" "Yes." And the 
 effectiveness of the home movement, witness admitted, woulel be crippled, if 
 the "sinews of war" were not forthcoming from America. Having thus got 
 at one reason why ]\Ir. Parnell " complained " of the opposition. Sir Charles 
 next asked INIajor Le Caron whether, after his return to America, he wrote to 
 Mr. Parnell respecting the mandate which Mr. Parnell was said to have given 
 him to send Devoy to England, and negotiate, in America, with Sullivan, 
 Hynes, and Dr. Carrol for peace between the American party and the open 
 organization in Ireland. " I did not write," said Le Caron. " How was that?" 
 Sir Charles asked, in surprise. There were two reasons ; in the first place, 
 he had not been asked to do it ; in the second place, he had been instructed 
 to write to some one else. "Who was that?" "Mr. Patrick Egan.' 
 "Have you mentioned one word of that before?" exclaimed Sir Charles 
 Russell, raising his voice. "No." ^Yhy? "Because I have never been 
 asked." 
 
 What did 50U think the mcst important part of the conversation you had with Mr> 
 Parnell ? — To mj- mind, the most important matter was his view as a revolutionist.! 
 
 You mean his remarks with reference to his seeing no reason whj^ thej- could not inaugu- 
 ratea revoluticnarj- movement? — Yes. 
 
 Didn't 3-0U regard that as the word of an insane man ? — He appeared to be sane enough. 
 
 Yes ; hut didn't the sentiments appear to be those of an insane man? — I had heard them, 
 before from other and as good men. J,^ 
 
 At the same time, it was Mr. Beach's personal opinion that the "senti- 
 ments " were insane. As he pronounced the words, "I did consider it an 
 insane idea," he bowed politely, raised his eyebrows, and wrinkled his fore- 
 head. 
 
 But if Le Caron thought that in 1881 the idea of an Irish revolution was 
 insane, he affirmed that the American Conspiracy was prospering. The last 
 secret Convention of the V.C was in June of last year, when Le Caron attended 
 as a delegate. " Have you a circular of that secret Convention ? " Sir Charles 
 asked him. He had not it with him at the mcment, but he would produce 
 it ; and in his business-like way Le Caron scribbled a niemorandum about the 
 circular which he was required to produce : and having done that he dropped 
 his pen and looked up again sharply, as if he wantecl to know whether Sir 
 Charles had any m.ore questions to ask. " Do ycu say this Y.C. Association 
 is flourishing?" "I say it is rery ficurishirg," the INIajor rapped out, with a 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Feb. 12. 135 
 
 decisive little nod. And then he explained that the later progress of the V.C. 
 dated from last June ; that for some years previously to 1887 the V.C. was 
 the prey of factions — so that in 1886 the Association was "in fragments." 
 But in that case, what was the Major's opinion of a passage which Sir Charles 
 read out from Mr. Bagenal's book on "The American Irish," published 
 in 1882? The passage stated that there were three chief factions among the 
 American-Irish ; and a fourth one called the dynamite faction, which was 
 too insignificant to deserve mention : one that had " no politics," was ignored 
 by the leaders of the other parties, and that compelled its members to 
 commit outrages from which, had they been left to themselves, they would 
 have shrunk. "Would you consider that an accurate description?" "It is accu- 
 rate," was the reply, " except in this single particular — that it overlooks the fact 
 that the largest party was the U.B., though unknown to the world." Le Caron 
 adhered to his main statement to the last, that the U.B., or party of violence, 
 was the mainspring of the American-Irish movement. 
 
 At this stage Sir Charles Russell left the cross-examination, for a time, to 
 Mr. Reid, Q.C. Mr. Reid questioned Le Caron concerning his tinancial 
 arrangements with the English Government, which he was supplying with 
 secret information. " My first agreement with the Home Government was," 
 said Major Le Caron, " that I should have ample funds for my work." The 
 specific arrangement lasted from 1868 to 1870. At what rate had he been 
 paid all that time? "Fifty pounds a month." Some confusion arising 
 between his statements that the fifty pounds did not cover his expenses, and 
 yet that he "lived " upon his secret service money, Le Caron explained that 
 besides the English service money he also received sums from the Canadian 
 Government. During that period he must have received in all about two 
 thousand pounds. " But," said Le Caron, emphatically, "the sums which I have 
 received since 1S72 have not repaid my expenses." " And so your utility is now 
 at an end ? " suggested Mr. Reid, raising his voice ; "has anything been arranged 
 as to your future?" "There — has — never — one — word — been — said on the 
 future," replied the Major, stopping deliberately at each word, gazing fixedly 
 at Mr. Reid, and bowing slowly, his arms crossed over his chest, in his 
 favourite attitude. 
 
 Mr. Reid next questioned Le Caron about the revolutionary circulars, which, 
 the witness stated, were "widely" distributed among the members of the 
 physical violence party. From his statement as to the number of " Senior 
 Guardians" in this party, it would seem that there must have been from 250 
 to 275 revolutionary camps in America, with a total membership of 23,000 
 men. " Now, said Mr. Reid, were all these 23,000 men in favour of the use 
 of dynamite ? " "Yes," replied Le Caron, brusquely. "Deliberately and 
 knowingly?" "Yes" — pronouncing it " yus." And he mentioned several 
 Conventions — those of 1881, 'S^, '85, '86 — at which he had been present 
 as a "U.B." delegate, and at the prehminary secret meetings of which he 
 had heard the use of dynamite advocated. "And you were a delegate?" 
 Mr. Reid asked, again in his mildest tones. "Yus." "And how did you 
 vote?" "I — always— voted — on the side — of^the majority," returned Le 
 Caron, in his imperturbable manner, again bowing slowly, and with his arms 
 crossed as before. There was a burst of laughter in court. But it did not 
 afifect Le Caron. Not the ghost of a flush passed over the yellow, thin, keen 
 features, which were as still as the features of a statue. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood followed. His cross-examination of Le Caron was extremely 
 brief, not bringing out anything new. Mr. Lockwood, alluding to the story 
 about Messrs. Sexton and Brennan in the Strand, at the time of the Phoenix 
 Park trials, announced that Mr. Sexton denied that he ever had any conversation 
 with Egan on the subject. Whereupon, Sir James Hannen observed that if 
 the point was important, "it would have to be followed up by Mr. Sexton 
 
136 Tuesday] Diary of [Feb. 13. 
 
 denying it in the witness-box." " j\Ir. Sexton is prepared to do so," replied 
 Mr. Lockwood. 
 
 Finally, the Attorney-General rose to rexaew the results of the investigation, 
 and to hand in to the judges some fresh documents, one of them very note- 
 worthy. 
 
 In the first place, the photograph which the witness said had been given to 
 him by Mr, Parnell in the House of Commons was produced. It bore Mr. 
 Parnell's own signature. The letter was supposed to be from John Devoy to 
 the witness, and to refer to the "mandate" which Mr. Parnell was alleged to 
 have given to Le Caron, for the purpose of bringing about an alliance between 
 the Land League movement and the American physical force party. In pro- 
 ducing this letter in Court, i\Iajor Le Caron explained that it was not in his 
 possession at the time of his examination-in-chief. The letter, written in 
 America, is given in the footnote.^ 
 
 Major Le Caron said that the letters H., E., P., meant Hynes, Egan, and 
 Parnell. Asked what the reference to the "kind of thing" at Buffalo meant, 
 the Major replied that it meant attempts by the Home Rule leaders to break up 
 the secret organization in America. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster next read a portion of Mr. Parnell's speech at 
 Cincinnati in February, 1880, in which speech Mr. Parnell was reported to have 
 said that — 
 
 When we have undermined the English Government we shall have paved the way for 
 Ireland to take her place with the nations of the earth ; and let us not forget that that is the 
 ultimate aim of Irishmen. We shall not be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link 
 v.'hich keeps Ireland bound to England. 
 
 That, said the learned counsel, was one of the speeches Le Caron identified. 
 *' The whole speech will be printed and handed in." Here Mr. Asquith 
 objected that he did not admit the accuracy of the report ; upon which the 
 Attorney-General remarked that he would show the words had never been 
 denied. After this Sir Richard Webster went over some more of the old ground 
 covered by the witness's examination-in-chief; and once more Le Caron 
 declared it to be his opinion that the secret organization did succeed in 
 ' ' running " the open organization in America. With respect to Sullivan, one 
 of the leaders of the secret organization, Le Caron stated, in reply to Mr. 
 Reid, that he had once upon a time been acquitted on a charge of murder. 
 " But not on his first trial," he added ; " it was on his second trial, and I 
 know how." "Well ? " said Mr. Reid ; and the Major proceeded — 
 
 Frank Agnew, the district member of my society, was sheriflf of Cook's Count}', in whose 
 charge the entire choice of the panel of the jurors took place. By Frank Agnew were chosen 
 the jury, in which were men belonging to our organization. The defence raised by Sullivan 
 was that he shot the man because of his conduct to his (Sullivan's) wife. 
 
 Pressed by Mr. Reid to say whether or not the jury was composed of 
 members of the V.C. organization, Major Le Caron maintained that it was 
 
 ^ 41, Orange Street, June 24, 1881. — Dear Friend, — I am sorrj- I was obliged to leave here 
 for New York last Saturday. I did not return until last night, so did not get your letter till 
 then. It would have been sent on to me, but they thought I should return sooner. JNIuch 
 obliged for the information 3-ou gave me, and the interest you have taken on a matter which 
 affects us all so closely. I have not heard from H. yet. Yesterday I received a short note 
 from E. urging me strongly to go over, but I did not understand for what purpose until I got 
 j-our explanations. I should like to go verj' much if I could, and if I thought my visit would 
 produce the effect anticipated. I have, however, no authority- to speak for anj'body, and I 
 could not speak for the V.C. without its authority. . . All I could do would be to tell E. 
 and P. that I could go over on my own responsibiltj- — which I believe would satisfy our friends 
 here — and make propositions that I feel morally certain would be approved of; but I would 
 not, on anj- consideration, have them to pay my expenses. That would place me in a false 
 position at once. I have asked advice, and if my friends think it a right thing to do I will 
 start next Wednesday. They misunderstand us on the other side. We do not oppose their 
 action in Ireland, but we cannot tolerate the kind of thing they have taken up in Butfalo. 
 
Wednesday'] the Parnell Commission. [Feb. 13. 137 
 
 "*' packed, in a sense," and that if the jurors were not V.C.'s they were at any 
 rate favourable to SuUivan. At this point the very long examination of Major 
 Le Caron came to an end. Bowing profoundly to their lordships, and thank- 
 ing them " exceedingly for the courtesy" they had shown him, Major Le 
 •Caron tripped lightly, smilingly out of the witness-box, found a quiet corner on 
 the solicitors' bench, right in front of their lordships, and became an interested 
 spectator of the trial of which, for a whole week, he himself had been the hero. 
 
 After this Sir Henry James proceeded to read a long series of extracts from 
 The N'ation newspaper, in order to show that Mr. Davitt had "borrowed" 
 money from the American "skirmishing fund," for the purpose of starting the 
 Land League. The reading was very tedious, provoking at last from the Presi- 
 dent the mild remonstrance that he could "see every now and then something 
 rising from the midst of the turbid stream." " Is it necessary to read them 
 all ? " Sir James Hannen asked. It was agreed to postpone the further reading 
 of speeches till next day ; and then — half-past three o'clock — Mr. Grove, of 
 New Bridge Street, London, was called as a witness to identify the portrait of 
 "Tynan," otherwise known as " Number One," whom he had once employed 
 as a traveller. Mr. Grove gave anything but a flattering account of the future 
 Number One's business habits and capacity. 
 
 Then a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary entered the box and 
 identified the portrait as that of a man who used to call himself Thomson, and 
 whom he had seen with Mr. Mat Harris. And lastly, Head Constable O'Gor- 
 man identified " Thomson," alias " Tynan," alias " Number One," as a person 
 whom he had seen in the company of Miss Reynolds, of the Ladies' Land 
 League, who used to go about Ireland among the peasantry. 
 
 FORTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 February 13. 
 
 - A Mr. Mitchell was the most interesting witness of the day. Scotch in 
 name, he was rather more Scotch than Irish in manner and accent. Mr. 
 Mitchell was the gentleman mentioned by Captain Slack as having been boy- 
 cotted himself for having supplied boycotted people with agricultural machines. 
 Mr. Mitchell swore the local League branch had warned him that if he 
 persisted in this course his life might be endangered. He did persist. He lost 
 twenty-nine head of cattle — in consequence, according to his own account. 
 
 " Where were you in March, 1883 ? " Sir Charles Russell asked him. " I was 
 passing through the Bankruptcy Court," was the prompt reply — worthy of the 
 renowned "Major " himself. There was a little laugh at Sir Charles's expense. 
 However, he did not mind it. Nor did he mind it, when Mr. Mitchell added, 
 somewhat hotly, " to which the parties you represent had brought me." Mr. 
 Mitchell declared stoutly that the boycott cost him all he had in the world — 
 four thousand pounds. 
 
 He gave a somewhat amusing story of a quarrel with Mr. Condon, M.P. 
 Mr. Condon, M.P., now Mayor of Clonmel, carries on a butcher's business 
 there. Boycotted though he was, Mr. Mitchell succeeded in buying some 
 meat in Mr. Condon's shop. It was like snatching his rations out of the lion's 
 den — almost out of the lion's jaws. It was an exploit in its way. But the lion 
 himself was out at the time. For when Mr. Mitchell emerged with his 
 provender, whom should he meet, almost on the threshold of the lion's den, 
 but the lion himself! Whereupon the lion — to wit, Mr. Condon — fell upon the 
 
138 Wednesday] Diary of [Feb, 13. 
 
 provender. Mr. Mitchell stuck to Mr. Condon, a tall, stout, powerfully-built 
 man. And as the adventurous Mitchell himself is no pigmy, the tussle 
 between the pair must have been a sight to see. Said Mr. Condon, letting 
 Mr. Mitchell go, "If I had been in the shop, it's the knife you would have 
 got." Such was Mr. Mitchell's story. Mr. Mitchell, who, as the reader per- 
 ceives, is a person of considerable resolution, had the last shot at his opponents 
 in the court. It being suggested that Mr. Mitchell was boycotted only because 
 he was an Emergency man, Mr. Mitchell, glancing at Mr. Davitt, made the 
 quick retort, "I was never boycotted properly until Mr. Davitt came to the 
 neighbourhood." The "properly" is clearly more Irish than Scotch. 
 
 It would be tedious to record the day's speech-reading. Two of the Royal 
 Irish Constabulary witnesses who took notes of the speeches of Mr. Boyton and 
 Mr. Biggar admitted they could not write shorthand, one of the two candidly 
 confessing that he took down the "worst" passages as best he could; the 
 other, that he wrote from memory, after the speech-making. 
 
 Then Mr. Creagh, a Kerry solicitor, appeared as a witness to say that he had 
 received from Mr. Brennan, secretary of the Land League, ;^6o, for defending 
 men charged with moonlighting. And Mr. Walsh, a Dublin solicitor, proved 
 receipts signed in his presence, in October, 1883, by the relatives of men who 
 had been sentenced for the Phoenix Park murders. Each relative of the con- 
 victed received a sum of ;^2o6 3s. gd., and gave his or her signature on the 
 spot. Mrs. Curley, who gave her signature was the widow of the Curley who 
 was hanged. Thomas Hanlon was the father of the young Hanlon who was 
 punished with a life sentence. Mrs. Faganwas the mother of another Phoenix 
 Park convict who was hanged, Thomas Brady got his two hundred and six: 
 pounds and odd shillings and pence, and his son, too, had been hanged. And 
 Mrs. Fitzmaurice was the wife of the carman who drove the murderers, 
 and who was sentenced to penal servitude for life. Miss Ford, said the 
 witness, paid the money, and she was accompanied by an American lady 
 named Miss Doughty. 
 
 A shortish young man, with a round back, bent head, high cheek bones,, 
 half-uneasy, half-scowling look, and thick black hair, cut somewhat in 
 "fringe" fashion over a low forehead, went into the box. His name — but 
 nobody could make it out. Spell it ! Yes ; but how? " How do you spell 
 your name?" asked Mr. Atkinson. " Faith, I don't know." Mr. Atkinson 
 himself spelled it — Heanne. Mr. Heanne was put into the box in order to tell 
 all he knew about people supposed to be Land League criminals in Letterfrack, 
 CO. Galway. He described how leaguers used to meet at the house of a Mrs. 
 Walsh ; he knew they were leaguers ; he gave the names of some of them ; 
 and he said that the murder of a man named Lyden and the mutilation and 
 killing of cattle were immediately preceded by League meetings in Mrs. 
 Walsh's house. But when cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell he showed 
 great ignorance and confusion about League matters in his parish. He did not 
 know the priests who were respectively the president and secretar}^ of the local 
 branch. And though he declared that the leaguers passed "resolutions" 
 about crimes, he did not know what a resolution meant. " Did he know what a 
 secretary was? " " No ; unless it meant a man that kept things secret?" 
 
Thursday] the Parncll Cammission. [Feb. 14. 139 
 
 fiftiet;h day. 
 
 February 14. 
 
 The day's work began with Mr. Davitt's reading of a number of passages from an 
 interview which an American journahst had with him in New York, and which 
 was piibHshed in T/ie New York World. Portions of this interview which 
 were reproduced in The Nation were read the previous day by Sir Henry 
 James, as evidence against Mr. Davitt ; and this morning Mr. Davitt, on his 
 part, read passages in quahfication of those that had been selected by Sir 
 Henry James. They are well worth summarising. Mr. Davitt had, as a 
 matter of fact, declared strongly against secret associations as being unnecessary 
 and mischievous wherever freedom of speech existed. He read his own 
 declarations from The World to the effect that open organization and discussion 
 were the only means of influencing a free public opinion. Mr. Davitt then 
 quoted from The World the political programme which he submitted to this free 
 opinion. The programme simply asked for such measures as self-government 
 in Ireland ; an improvement of the Irish land system by the establishment of 
 peasant proprietorship ; for a development of Irish national resources ; for 
 improved dwellings ; and so forth. As to the story of his having "borrowed 
 Skirmishing Fund" money to start the Land League in Ireland, Mr. Davitt 
 explained that local committees paid the expenses of printing and of meeting- 
 rooms ; and that he himself had defrayed much of the cost from a testimonial 
 which had been presented to him on his release from prison. 
 
 After Mr. Davitt, came the ex-Land League clerk, Farragher, who, in hi& 
 previous evidence, stated that he had carried letters with cheques from Egan 
 to Mullett, one of the Phoenix Park convicts. Farragher again stated that 
 parcels of The Irish World were received regularly at the Land League offices 
 in Dublin. Cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell, he admitted that the 
 parcels were addressed to the Dublin correspondent of The Nezo York Worlds 
 Mr. Larkin ; and that he did not know whether Mr. Larkin was a Fenian. 
 As to the dates of his conveyance of letters from Mr. Egan to Mullett, he was 
 very hazy. He could not tell whether it was a week, a month, or a year that 
 passed between his deliveiy of the first letter and his delivery of the seconds 
 Nor would he say how long he was a clerk in the Land League office, nor 
 when he joined it. 
 
 All this while there was a buzz of conversation going on throughout the 
 court. For the news had already leaked out that " the letters" would "spring 
 up " before midday, and the interest in " the letters " extinguished every other^ 
 When, therefore, the Attorney-Geneial called out the name of Mr. Joseph 
 Soames, there was instant silence, and every eye in court was directed towards- 
 the witness-box, into which the usher, bustling ahead, was escorting the 
 solicitor for The Times. The world had been waiting well-nigh four months 
 for Mr. Soames : and there he stood at last, with his black box beside him. 
 
 But before the alleged Parnell letters were produced, more than an hour was 
 spent in examining Mr. Soames respecting the other contents of his black box,, 
 and the steps by which he had discovered them. Mr. Soames described how 
 he had visited Dublin repeatedly for the purpose of collecting evidence, and 
 how, in May, 1888, in the office of Mr. Brophy, solicitor, of Dubl'n, he had' 
 met an ex-Land League official whom he had asked for specimens of Mr.. 
 Egan's handwriting, and who told him that he had other valuable documents 
 in his possession, which he could produce. He did produce them, and Mr. 
 Soames spent two hours in examining them. He took pencil copies of some 
 of them. But the person -who showed him these documents ^^ould not allow 
 them to go out of his possession just then, though on Whit Monday, 1SS8, he- 
 
140 Thursday] Diary of [Feb. 14. 
 
 brought them to London. Some of these documents were endorsed ''J. F.," 
 in red ink. This " J. F." was, said Mr. Soames, Mr. John Fergusson, an 
 ex-Land League official then residing in Glasgow ; for he had put himself at 
 •once into communication with Mr. Fergusson, and so was enabled to compare 
 the handwriting of Mr. Fergusson's letters to him with the signatures he had 
 found in Dublin. 
 
 The Attorney-General then proceeded to read a large number of the letters 
 and documents in Mr. Soames's possession. Most of the letters contained 
 appeals to the headquarters of the Land League for pecuniary assistance to 
 people who had lost their employment because of their obedience to Land 
 League rules. For example, there was a letter, bearing the endorsing signature 
 ■*' J. F." which authorized the payment of " ten pounds for the seven " — that 
 is, seven labourers whom their employer, who was boycotted, turned out 
 because they would not work for him. 
 
 At last the Attorney-General, in a tone as of indifference, and but barely 
 audible, put the question, " When, Mr. Soames, were you consulted as to the 
 facsimile letter of May 15, 1S88?" It was at the end of 1886, the same day 
 on which he had seen all the alleged Parnell letters, with the exception of one 
 of June i6th. The facsimiles, nicely got up in the form of transparencies, 
 lay on the desk before Mr. Soames, who kept his eyes on them while the 
 Attorney-General read his copies. The gentleman who first showed Mr. 
 Soames the alleged letters was Mr. Macdonald, the manager of T/ie Times. 
 Subsequently to the interview between Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Soames, the 
 -letters were submitted to an expert, Mr. Inglis. This was in April, 1887. 
 
 What steps had been taken to identify these alleged signatures of Mr. 
 -Parnell's before the publication in The Times ? In answer to this question, 
 Mr. Soames described how he had procured bojid fide letters and signatures of 
 Mr. Parnell's from the House of Commons, from Dublin, and other quarters. 
 For example, one was an order of admission to the House addressed to Mr. 
 -Ross, one of The Times representatives in the House of Commons Gallery. 
 Besides, there were bond fide letters in the handwriting of Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
 Parnell's secretary, with Mr. Parnell's signature attached. Mr. Soames 
 •explained that he did not know — when Mr. Macdonald first showed him the 
 letter of May 115th — in whose handwriting the body of the letter was ; he had 
 no opinion on the matter ; he had no " means of judging." 
 
 Then Mr. Soames produced letters, the whole of which, signatures included, 
 were believed to be in Mr. Parnell's handwriting ; as also several summonses 
 which had been signed by Mr. Parnell in his capacity of a justice of the peace. Mr. 
 Soames next declared that the comparison of the documents in Mr. ]\Iacdonald's 
 possession with the others already referred to, convinced him that the signatures 
 of the former were in Mr. Parnell's, and the "body " of some of them in Mr. 
 Campbell's handwriting. The Attorney-General asked Mr. Soames whether Mr. 
 Inglis, the expert, had advised them that they w^ere genuine? But to this question 
 Sir Charles Russell objected, and the President ruled that it was inadmissible. 
 
 Next came an interesting piece of information. Not until after the 
 O'Donnell trial did Mr. Macdonald tell him that the alleged Parnell letters 
 had been received through Houston, secretary of the Irish Loyal and Patriotic 
 Union, from Pigott, editor of the Dublin Ii-ishman, the organ of the Fenians. 
 But all payments in connection with this investigation had passed through Mr. 
 Soames's hands. He first paid one thousand pounds to Houston, but the 
 money was not for letters only, it was also in payment of expenses of missions 
 to America. On three other occasions he paid Mr. Houston sums amounting 
 to an aggregate of ten hundred and forty-two pounds, besides several smaller 
 .sums. A detective named Moser received between one and two thousand 
 pounds for his services in America ; and a Mr. Kirby had been paid two 
 hundred and fifty pounds and his travelling expenses for a like service. 
 
Friday] the Parncll Conunission. [Feb. 15. 141 
 
 FIFTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 February 15. 
 
 The most interesting day since the trial began. The court was densely packed. 
 Inglis, the expert in handwriting employed by T/ie Times, stood near one of 
 the doorways. Houston, from whom Mr. Macdonald, of T/ie Times, received 
 the letters, was also present. And so was the man who gave them to Houston ; 
 but the mysterious Pigott sat in an obscure corner by himself, almost unobserved. 
 He sat there until, at Sir Charles Russell's request, he was ordered to withdraw 
 from the court. 
 
 Mr. Soames, who was under cross-examination, had just been describing 
 how, at the time of the introduction of the Commission Bill, Houston had 
 released Mr. Macdonald of The Times from his obligation of secresy, and how 
 Pigott had released Houston. "It was then," said Mr. Soames, "that Pigott 
 had his tirst interview with me." 
 
 At this point, Sir Charles Russell requested that Pigott should withdraw. 
 Everybody looked this way and that to see where Pigott was. It was an 
 odd movement, this craning of necks, this peering round about — as if every- 
 body suspected everybody else of being Pigott. Pigott slipped out almost 
 imseen — close at the heels of the clerk to whom Mr. Soames, first jingling 
 for a second or two in his pockets, gave a bunch of keys, wherewith to search 
 in his office in Lincoln's-inn-fields, for certain memoranda referring to the 
 Pigott interview and other details. Pigott having vanished into the corridors, 
 Mr. Soames continued his story. Pigott told him simply that he found the 
 letters in the summer of 1886. But he did not say where or from whom 
 he got them. "And I'll tell you why I did not ask him," said ISIr. Soames, 
 in one of his frequent explanatory parentheses ; "he told me at the outset he 
 would not tell me where and from whom, and that if he ever did tell he would 
 do it himself in the witness-box." There was not the ghost of a hint as to 
 the source from which Pigott got the letters ; all Mr. Soames knew was that 
 Mr. Macdonald got them from Houston, and Houston from Pigott. "And I 
 believe," said Mr. Soames, "that even now Mr. Macdonald does not know, 
 and that Houston does not know." 
 
 And yet Mr. Soames firmly beheved that the signatures were Mr. Parnell's 
 — he believed this on the testimony of the experts and as a result of his 
 personal comparison of the disputed signatures with letters and other docu- 
 ments of Mr. Parnell's which were admitted to be genuine. 
 
 Mr. Soames was equally confident as to the authenticity of the Davitt 
 letter ; for Mr. Davitt himself had copied this letter in Mr. Soames's own 
 office, and in Mr. Lewis's presence. The likeness between the handwriting of 
 the letter in Mr. Soames's possession and that of the copy which Mr. Davitt 
 made of it was enough for Mr. Soames. 
 
 Next, then, about the Egan letters ; and what had Mr. Soames done to 
 satisfy himself that the letters alleged to be Egan's were authentic ? Well, 
 Mr. Soames had addresses on envelopes, signatures to photographs, iSzc. And 
 Mr. Cunynghame, Secretary to the Commission, handed Mr. Soames a big 
 bundle of Egan letters, authentic ones, from which to select two or three, 
 said Sir Charles, and compare them with the disputed ones. Mr. Soames, in 
 a somewhat brusque manner, said he could select all. But I only want two 
 or three, mildly expostulated Sir Charles; and if you won't, "I suppose I 
 must." And then followed a long interval of crumpling of leaves, h'ming 
 and hawing, mutterings and mumblings, while the P. E.s (Pat Egan) and the 
 little "y's" and the big "y's," the "s's," and the " r's " were compared 
 stroke by stroke. " Look at that final 'y' in 'truly,' " remarked Mr. Soames, 
 
i|2 Friday] Di.ivy of [Feb. 15. 
 
 ■s:n'ling half-pensively, and cocking his head to one side. " Anything else?" 
 asked Sir Charles, taking a pinch of snufif, and patting his n )stril with his 
 thumb. Just look at the ''D^ar" in that "Dear Sir," which is the sam3 as 
 that in a letter of November, i88i. • The same process was gone through with 
 the Parnell letters. The r's, the I's, the n's, &c., in the acknowledged letters 
 were compared with the same characters in the disputed ones. In the course 
 of this leisurely operation, Mr. Soames remarked on Mr. Parnell's diverse 
 ^styles of handwriting, and also on what he called Mr. ParnelFs contradictory 
 statement about his signatures. Here Mr. Parnell smiled. 
 
 It was interesting to watch Mr. Parnell's demeanour during all this investiga- 
 tion. Now he appeared to be lost in thought, and now he looked up wiih an 
 expression of amusement w^hen the big book from Kilmainham Goal was 
 handed over, and the lawyers clustered about it. Mr. Parnell rose up, leant 
 over the back of the bench, and nodded and smiled as he placed his finger on 
 one of thirteen signatures which adorned the pages of that very common- 
 .placedooking folio volume. If Mr. Quaritch were to advertise that volume 
 to-morrow, there would be a run upon it. Mr. Davitt smiled as he gazed 
 upon the old signature of his fellow "criminal." Mr. Parnell, by the way, 
 has confuted the newsmongers. Only the night before he had been reported 
 to be dangerously ill. The consequence was that the visitors in court did not 
 expect him to-day. He surprised them by coming in at half-past eleven 
 o'clock, with his yellowy-brown topcoat thrown over his left shoulder (which 
 sufifers slightly from rheumatism). Pale as he was, Mr. Parnell looked better 
 ■than he did when he appeared in court eight or nine days ago ; to all appearance 
 he was on good terms with himself. 
 
 And now, all of a sudden. Sir Charles Russell put a question whereat all 
 present pricked up their ears, — Did Pigott tell you he had a grievance against 
 Mr. Parnell ? No. Nor had Pigott said anything about his paper, T/ie 
 Irishman, which was extinguished by United L-eland. 
 
 Then Mr. Soames said that he had detected interviews of T^Ir. Lewis and 
 Mr. Labouchere with the same mysterious Pigott. Did it not occur to Mr. 
 Soames, as soon as he found that Pigott was in close communication with Mr. 
 Lewis and Mr. Labouchere — did it not occur to him to press Pigott as to the 
 source whence he derived the letters? No; not even though Mr. Soames's 
 detectives had traced Pigott to Mr. Labouchere's house, where Mr. Parnell 
 and ]Mr. Lewis also were present at the time ! 
 
 Did Pigott tell you he told Mr. Lewis that he himself had forged the letters? 
 -An inarticulate murmur of surprise passed over the court. 
 
 No, replied Mr. Soames, but Pigott told me that Mr, Lewis had tried to 
 ^et him to say so, and that Mr. Labouchere offered him a thousand pounds if 
 he would go into the witness-box and swear to it. 
 
 Mr. Soames held his audience spell-bound, so to speak, as he described how 
 Pigott himself came voluntarily to Tiie Tinns office ; how Pigott was given 
 to understand that The Times would not undertake to pay him anything, 
 hut was promised that if the letters proved authentic he would not be "ruined" 
 for his services in the witness-box ; how Pigott's request for five thousand 
 pounds reward was made, not to The Times, but to Houston, on the ground that 
 Pigott could not safely live in Ireland after he gave his evidence for The Times ; 
 how he (Mr, Soames) had discovered an emissary of Pat Egan's ; and how he 
 watched this emissary, O'Brien, watching Pigott ; and how Mr. Soames's 
 detective ran the spy O'Brien to earth in Mr. Labouchere's house. At ten 
 minutes to one o'clock Sir Charles Russell's cross-examination came to an end. 
 Mr. Soames acquitted himself of his difficult task very well, Mr. Labouchere 
 -and Mr. Lewis smiled repeatedly as they heard Mr. Soames's story. 
 
 Now cam; the most important witness yet examined — Mr. J. C. Macdonald, 
 manager of The Times. Replying to the Attorney-General, he stated that 
 
Ttiesddy] the Parnell Coimnission. [Feb. ig. 143 
 
 A\'hen first he received the letters he made no bargain whatever about them. 
 All that he undertook then to do was if the letters proved to be authentic to 
 pay Houston what Houston himself said he had expended in procuring them. 
 Houston, he said, did not say where he got them : that was a secret, which 
 was not divulged until after many months. 
 
 But Mr. Asquith's cross-examination was the exciting part of the business. 
 j\Ir. Asquith did his work well. The main endeavour of his long stream of 
 searching questions was to find out to what extent Mr, Macdonald had placed 
 confidence in people who would only tell him that they had received " the 
 letters from a person or persons whose names they would not give up," and to 
 what extent also he had been guided in forming his opinion about the 
 authenticity of the signatures by "internal evidence." As for the expression 
 about " making it hot for Forster," why, exclaimed Mr. Macdonald, with an 
 air of complete confidence, that was just the expression Mr. Parnell would 
 have used — it was Mr. Parnell all over. He candidly admitted that he made 
 up his mind about the authenticity of the signatures and letters ' ' from the 
 very beginning." He described the frequent overtures made to him before 
 the originals were produced. He had heard that the letters were offered to 
 Lord Hartington ; but he had never heard they had been offered to TAe Pall 
 Mall Gazelle for a thousand pounds. Mr. Macdonald rather complicated 
 matters by saying he believed that Mr. Parnell and Mr. Campbell had tried to 
 " disguise " their handwriting. This was not the only statement of Mr. Mac- 
 •donald's which was followed by a burst of laughter in court. Much merriment 
 was caused by his statement — on Houston's authority — that the Irish leaders used 
 three different handwritings for their letters — one for " the body," one for the 
 signature, one for the address. But he had nothing to say to Mr. Asquith's 
 prompt reminder that Egan's letters were written throughout in one hand- 
 writing. " No, no," the answer was, when Mr. Asquith asked whether he 
 had taken any trouble to find out from whom Pigott got the letters. "And 
 yet you were satisfied ? " exclaimed Mr. Asquith, looking up with an expression 
 of surprise. " Yes." " Why did you select the 1 8th of April for the publica- 
 tion of the supposed Parnell signature?" Mr. Asquith thundered out, coming 
 down on the desk with his fist ? "Why," replied Mr. Macdonald, " just because 
 the state of affairs made it a proper occasion ; because the second reading of 
 the Coercion Bill was coming on that very night. Every journalist," said Mr. 
 Macdonald, " must choose his opportunities." 
 
 FIFTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 February 19. 
 
 The cross-examination of Mr. Macdonald, the manager of The Times ^ was 
 resumed by Mr. Asquith. What steps, he asked, had Mr. Macdonald taken 
 to satisfy himself as to the authenticity of the first batch of letters which 
 Houston brought to him at The Times Office in October, 1886? Why, Mr. 
 Macdonald merely listened to Houston as he read out compromising docu- 
 ments. Mr. Macdonald did not read them, nor did he handle them. Nor 
 did Houston even leave them bAind for Mr. Macdonald's more leisurely 
 perusal ; he took them away with him, as if he could not trust them in the 
 hands of the manager of The Times. Mr. Macdonald did not ask Houston 
 to search for other specimens of handwriting useful for authenticating the 
 signatures of the supposed discovery. There seemed to be a world of 
 conviction in the little head-shake, or brief muttered " No," with which 
 
144 Tuesday] Diary of ' [Feb. 19. 
 
 Mr. Macdonald answered Mr. Asquith's questions as to whether he had takers 
 this, that, or the other precaution. " Yoji may be dull, slow fellow," the little 
 head-shake seemed to say. Still, Mr. Asquith proceeded with his questions. 
 
 "Well," said he, " let us take three of the five Parnellite letters, and see if you 
 can tell us what there is of a compromising nature in them ; " and he quoted 
 one letter in which Mr. Parnell asked papers to be sent to him, a second in 
 which Mr. Parnell wished some one to write to him direct, and a third in 
 which iNIr. Parnell stated his opinion that he saw no objection to the payment 
 of a certain sum of money. " Do you think that compromising ?" asked Mr. 
 Asquith, raising his eyebrows, and leaning back against the bench, with his^- 
 hands behind him. " Yes," was the short reply, accompanied by a quiet 
 little nod, as full of conviction and personal satisfaction as the little head- 
 shake. After a pause, during which Mr. Asquith gazed curiously at Mr. 
 Macdonald, Mr. Asquith put the following question, "If Mr. Houston had 
 brought these letters only, would you have been satisfied that they were 
 of a compromising nature? " Again the little nod. Again the look of mild 
 surprise on his cross-examiner's face ; and a ripple of laughter all over the- 
 court, when Mr. Macdonald, twirling \\\zfincenez between his fingers and gazing: 
 for a long time absently at the ceiling, suddenly looked down, darted a 
 look at Mr. Asquith, and remarked, with a knowing smile, "But lam not 
 bound to tell you why that was my opinion." Then Mr. INIacdonald crossed 
 his hands behind his back, cocked his head sideways, and gazed through the- 
 corners of his eyes with a mingled air of tolerance and amusement at his 
 questioner. Mr. Asquith tried to make him tell, but to little or no purpose. 
 At one moment it seemed as if ISIr. INIacdonald were growing a little angry, 
 as when he objected that he considered it "unfair "to press him for his 
 reasons. 
 
 But there were two more batches of Mr. Parnell's supposed letters, and,, 
 according to Mr. INIacdonald, he exhibited, with respect to these, the same 
 thorough faith in Houston which he had exhibited with respect to the first 
 batch. iNIr. Houston did not tell him where he got the letters ; nor did Mr.^ 
 Macdonald ask him where. Nor were INIr. Macdonald's suspicions aroused 
 by the fact that no envelopes were produced with these batches. Or, rather,, 
 the absence of envelopes made Mr. Macdonald all the more suspicious of Mr. 
 Parnell. There was an outburst of laughter when INIr. Asquith made a 
 remark to the effect that INIr. Macdonald was strong on envelopes — Mr. 
 Macdonald's theor}^ being that, according to the elaborate system which the 
 Irish leaders followed, they caused the envelopes of their " compromising " 
 letters to be written in one hand, the "body " of the letters in a second, and 
 the signatures in a third. Anyhow, at the mention of envelopes, a broad 
 smile beamed all over Mr. Macdonald's face, and he gazed, again, at the- 
 ceiling. "Yes," he said, with another of his quiet little nods, " I abstained 
 from asking Mr. Houston why the envelopes were wanting, and from whom 
 he got the letters." " I particularly avoided the subject of origin," exclaimed 
 Mr. INIacdonald, at which admission there was another explosion of laughter. 
 Even after he learned that Pigott was the man who supplied Houston, Mr. 
 INIacdonald refrained from making inquiries about the former's antecedents, 
 character, and position. Of course, it may by and by turn out that Mr. 
 Macdonald had good reasons for his confidence in Houston ; but the frequent 
 laughter in court was clearly an expression of surprise at the apparent in- 
 exhaustibility of Mr. INIacdonald's faith. Curiously enough — from the out- 
 sider's view-point, we mean — Mr. Macdonald sometimes withheld information 
 from Mr. Soames, though he always placed such confidence in Houston. 
 There Avas an alleged letter of Mr. Parnell to Pigott which INIr. INIacdonald 
 thought a proof of signature, but the existence of which he long kept secret,, 
 even from Mr. Soames. 
 
Ttcesdayl the Parnell Connnission. [Feb. 19. 145 
 
 Then Mr. Asquith passed to some of the most serious allegations in 
 *' Parnellism and Crime," with a view to ascertaining whether 7'he Times 
 had done its best to verify the letters before publishing them. And here 
 it appeared on Mr. Macdonald's own showing that his knowledge of their 
 source was of the vaguest and slenderest description. As for The Times 
 statement about the keeping, in Palace Chambers, Westminster, of the knives 
 employed in the Phoenix Park murders, all that Mr. Macdonald could say 
 was that the information came from "the writer of the article," but he 
 refused to divulge the writer's name. Here a somewhat long altercation 
 ensued between Mr. Asquith and Mr. Macdonald, the latter refusing to give 
 information about secrets which were the property more of the editor than 
 of the manager of The Times. During the discussion Mr. Parnell entered, 
 wrapped up in a big, brownish Inverness cape, and carrying a well-filled 
 black bag. At last the President decided that ]\Ir. Macdonald was bound to 
 answer the questions put to him about the authorship of the statements and 
 articles of the series known as " Parnellism and Crime." Mr. Macdonald, 
 carefully looking through the article about the Phoenix Park knives, declared 
 he did not know who wrote it. Then he said that the series was the work of 
 several writers. All Mr. Macdonald could say was that he did not know 
 where the writer got the information ; that he did not even ask the writer 
 where he got it ', and that the writer himself offered no information on the 
 subject ! 
 
 The foregoing are fair specimens of Mr. Macdonald's general replies to 
 questions about The Times authority for statements in the " Parnellism and 
 Crime " series. He could not say what precise information, if any, The 
 Times writer had before him when he said that Mr. Parnell's cheque 
 enabled Mr. Frank Byrne to escape. There was a certain letter from 
 which The Times writer might conceivably have drawn his inference ; but 
 then the letter was not "received" by The Titnes authorities before the 
 publication of the accusation. Still, it might have been "seen" without 
 being " received." " But was it seen ? " exclaimed Mr. Asquith, in a somewhat 
 impatient tone. " I don't know," was the reply ; and there was another 
 burst of laughter in court. The laughter was still louder when Mr. Mac- 
 donald, stating that none were "specifically" employed to write the 
 articles of the series, threw in the remark that the articles were "written in 
 the ordinary course of business." A few more questions of the same class 
 concluded Mr. Asquith's cross-examination, admitted by all who heard it 
 to be very able. 
 
 \\T:ien Mr. Asquith sat down, the Attorney-General rose to re-examine ; 
 but the process was extremely brief. In a minute or two Mr. Macdonald 
 descended smilingly from the witness-box, and sat down quietly in his 
 accustomed seat, to all appearance thoroughly well satisfied with his per- 
 formance. The Attorney-General now proposed to call the expert, Mr. 
 Inglis ; but Sir Charles Russell firmly protested, on the ground that the 
 expert should not be heard before Houston and Pigott were questioned about 
 the sources from which they got the letters. He declared he would not 
 cross-examine the expert unless this course was followed. Then the 
 Attorney-General protested. Next the President took Sir Charles's part. 
 But Sir Richard Webster insisted on having his way, and he had it. But 
 in less than twelve minutes, and after a brief adjournment, which he asked 
 for — for the purpose of consulting Mr. Soames — Sir Richard Webster agreed 
 to postpone the examination of the expert, and to call Houston. At ten 
 minutes to one Houston entered the witness-box. 
 
 Houston appeared somewhat nervous at first, but quickly recovered bis 
 self-possession, and proved himself an intelligent witness. The substance 
 of his story, as given in reply to the Attorney-General's questions was that 
 
^46 Tuesday] Diary of [Feb. 19. 
 
 he first entered into communication with PIgott at the end of 1885 ; that 
 Pigott at the beginning assisted him in gathering materials for a pamphlet 
 which he, Houston, published at that time, under the name of " Parnellism 
 Unmasked"; that he next commissioned Pigott to find out evidence such as 
 would connect Parnellism with crime ; that he paid Pigott a pound a day 
 and his expenses to go to Paris, Lausanne, and America, where there were 
 supposed to be persons in possession of compromising documents ; that Pigott 
 informed him that certain important letters were kept in Paris — (in a 
 certain house wherein Frank Byrne was said to have left them, in the 
 hurry of his supposed flight from England) ; that these turned out to be the 
 five famous letters "of Mr, Parnell " and the six "of Pat Egan"; and that 
 during all this time he was paying Pigott's expenses out of his own pocket, 
 or with borrowed money. He went on to say that he was obliged to borrow 
 twelve or fifteen hundred pounds from Dr. Maguire, of Dublin ; and that 
 in his subsequent interviews with his employers of The Titnes he declared 
 that under no circumstances would he accept any reward for himself. When 
 he did get seventeen hundred and eighty pounds from The Times., the sum 
 exactly covered all the expenses he had incurred. After the first batch there 
 came, at considerable intervals, a second batch and a third. Not until the 
 appointment of the Special Commission did Houston tell Mr. Macdonald that 
 Pigott was the man from whom he got the letters. 
 
 Where did Mr. Pigott get them ? That was the main question to which 
 Sir Charles Russell addressed himself. But it turned out that Houston 
 trusted Pigott, just as Mr. Macdonald trusted Houston. Up to December 
 last Mr. Houston had a large number of Pigott's letters in his possession 
 — letters which might possibly reveal the original sources from which the 
 "incriminating" documents were derived. Well, where were they? He 
 destroyed them all! "Deliberately?" exclaimed Sir Charles. " Yes," de- 
 liberately, was the reply. And yet Houston had shortly before been subpoened 
 to appear as a witness, and he also knew that Pigott had been served 
 with a notice on behalf of Mr. Parnell ; and, moreover, the Commission 
 had been sitting two months at the time he destroyed what might turn out to 
 be extremely valuable proofs ! Houston did not even ask Mr. Soames 
 whether it was right to destroy the letters. " Did you heave a sigh of relief," 
 asked Sir Charles, insinuatingly, "when Pigott told you he had destroyed 
 your letters?" (Laughter.) "You destroyed your corroborative proofs," 
 exclaimed Sir Charles, again returning to the charge. " Yes," retorted the 
 witness, "but I wanted to destroy all clue to original sources. Besides," said 
 he, " I was satisfied with the statutory declaration which Pigott lately made 
 about his intercourse with Mr, Labouchere and Mr. Parnell, and with his 
 sworn affidavit that the letters were not his forgeries. " As to Sir Charles's 
 question, whether he considered the destruction of the letters fair to Mr. 
 Parnell, Houston replied that he did not think Mr. Parnell entitled to any 
 consideration. 
 
 Houston glanced downwards and sideways as he said this. He tried to 
 appear unconcerned ; but he failed awkwardly. A curious exhibition of 
 i^nsolence and uneasiness — at which Mr. Parnell smiled. 
 
 There was just a moment of eager curiosity among the densely-packed 
 audience when Houston said there was a man named Murphy of whom 
 Pigott spoke in connection with the discovery of documents. Could Murphy 
 be the missing link ? No. Murphy was no longer in the land of the living, 
 and dead men tell no tales. Another mysterious person, who was apparently 
 in the same boat with Murphy, was a man named Colbert, but he too was 
 dead and buried — nothing to be got out of him, "And that," exclaimed Sir 
 Charles, " is the sum and substance of all you know about the persons, places, 
 circumstances of these discoveries ? " — Yes : that was all ! 
 
Wedmsday] the Pdviidl Co:ii nission. [Feb. 20. i|7 
 
 FIFTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 February 20. 
 
 'Sir Charles Russell resumed his cross-examination of Mr. Houston 
 •lo-day punctually at half-past tea. He plunged at once into the question of 
 Houston's deliberate destruction — some weeks after the Commission began to 
 sit — of all his "corroborative documents." Houston adhered to his explan- 
 ation of the day before, that a determination to maintain complete secrecy, 
 . to shield Pigott's informants, ani to prevent his own name from being con- 
 ■ nected with Pigott's, was his motive for destroying those proofs — including the 
 letters which Pigott wrote to him from abroad, and in which Pigott informed 
 him of the progress of his search for compromising documents. 
 
 " Would you just tell us in your own way," said Sir Charles, " the whole story 
 -of how you came into possession of the first batch of documents, containing the 
 five alleged letters of Mr. Parnell? " And then, after a little fencing with his 
 cross-examiner — such as asking him where, in point of time and place he was to 
 begin — he narrated the story of the mysterious black bag. The black bag had 
 been mentioned yesterday, and as a matter of fact Houston had alr^eady given 
 the story of it ; but he had to repeat the tale, and his cross-examiner was 
 about to enter more minutely into details. As Houston proceeded with the 
 story of the black bag, he moved about rather restlessly ; his hands, clasped 
 behind his back, were constantly twitching. The summary of the tale of the 
 black bag is as follows : Pigott told him that he learned that certain com- 
 promising documents were left in a black bag in a room which had been occu- 
 pied by Frank Byrne. This black bag was conveyed to Paris, where it wa.'- 
 kept in the possession of certain Fenian refugees Even when Pigott dis- 
 • covered the locale of the black bag, he found that the " open sesame " to the 
 black bag — that was Sir Charles's expression — was not in Paris, but in 
 America. And so the persevering Pigott must hie him forth to America, 
 and procure from the American Fenians permission to get at the contents of 
 the mysterious black bag. And Pigott returned, and met his employer (Mr. 
 Houston) in Dublin, and Pigott talked about American politics — pretty much as 
 any one might who had read that morning's papers, but as to any paticulars 
 of Pigott's special mission, about the persons whom he had seen, about any 
 papers he might have received from them, not a word ! 
 
 " Did you take any steps to test these statements about the black bag ? " Sir 
 Charles inquired, after a long pause, wrinkling his forehead, and talking almost 
 under his breath. No, Pigott's employer had not. But his next confession 
 was still more astonishing ; he said that for corroboration of the statements 
 in the black bag tale, he relied generally on what he considered to be their 
 harmony with newspaper criticisms on the Parnellite situation. But he 
 entirely failed to answer the questions : What Press, what contemporaneous 
 events in particular, did you rely upon ? But on the first blush of it did not 
 that tale of the black bag appear to him somewhat singular ? Not altogether. 
 This intelligent witness, brought up in a good school, the school of public 
 affairs, refrained from making even the slightest inquiry as to where "the 
 room " was, where the street was, how the bag had been taken to Paris. 
 Nor did he know who searched for the black bag in Paris ; all he knew was 
 that Pigott professed to have got at its contents. 
 
 Oh, yes ; there was a man in Paris, to whom Pigott had referred by name 
 as the person supposed to be able to trace the black bag. Mr. Houston's 
 hearers pricked up their ears when Sir Charles, leaning forward, asked who 
 the man was, and what service he rendered. His name was Casey, and he 
 did — nothing. Great disappointment among the au;lience; and perplexity 
 
148 Wednesday] Diary of [Feb. 20.- 
 
 in Sir Charles Russell's mind over these two facts — that the only man whom- 
 Mr. Houston remembered as having been in intercourse with Pigott was a man- 
 who confessed he knew nothing about the black bag ; and that Mr. Houston 
 had deliberately destroyed the Pigott letters in which Pigott's colleagues in 
 the search were mentioned by alphabetical signs. All this while Mr. Parnell 
 sat on the front bench. The collar of his dark-brown great coat was drawn 
 tip to his ears. Mr. Parnell was absorbed in watching Mr. Houston. He • 
 gazed at him with an air of intense amusement. 
 
 Mr. Houston's faith in Pigott was as boundless as Mr. ISIacdonald's faith in 
 Mr. Houston. There, for example, was the story of "the people downstairs,"" 
 which Houston narrated — to the merriment of his audience. The " people ■ 
 downstairs " were the people who knew all about the black bag — who, we 
 are to understand, sold the (alleged) contents thereof to Pigott, who sold them 
 to Mr. Houston, who sold them to Mr. Macdonald of The Tbnes. And "down- 
 stairs " was in Paris — in the Hotel des deux Mondes, Avemie de V Opera, where 
 Mr. Houston resided when he crossed over to receive the find from Pigott's 
 hands, and pay for it on the spot. When Pigott called at the hotel to see 
 Mr. Houston he had the five "Parnell " letters wuth him. But he would not 
 part with them until he got the money — for which money " the people down-- 
 stairs " were waiting. " Aye " — " aye " — " aye," Sir Charles remarked, while 
 he tapped his snuff-box, and encouraged Houston to go on with his amazing 
 story. "And did you go and see who were downstairs?" said the cross- 
 examiner, taking a pinch. "No." " No?" exclaimed Sir Charles, suddenly 
 looking up with an air of astonishment. " No." (Great laughter.) The usher 
 scowled : he was about to shout out " Silence," but abstained. 
 
 *' Did you ask who they were?" "No." More merriment — which was 
 anything but assuaged when Mr. Houston explained — "I wished to keep- 
 myself aloof; I wanted to keep myself in ignorance of the source of the- 
 letters." This expression, or its equivalent, runs through the whole of Houston's . 
 ev-idence. His whole story hangs upon it. He has been saying all along that 
 he carefully abstained from testing the worth of Pigott's researches and narra- 
 tives, for the following reasons — that the names of the persons from whom 
 Pigott got the letters were never to be divulged ; that if Mr. Houston knew 
 nothing, w^hy, of course, Mr. Houston could tell nothing. Mr. Houston did 
 not even ask Pigott for a receipt for the money, ^^605 (^500 for " the people 
 downstairs," and a hundred guineas for their emissary upstairs) which he paid 
 on the spot. Nor did the emissary upstairs ever show any receipts from his 
 friends downstairs, nor did the trustful Mr. Houston ever ask for them. " You 
 were carefully shutting your eyes," said Sir Charles Russell, by way of' 
 summing up the strange story about "the people downstairs." 
 
 "Why did Houston go to Paris ? Because of a telegram from Pigott — the mean- 
 ing of which telegram was made plain to him by previous correspondence with 
 Pigott, in which correspondence Pigott referred, by letters of the alphabet, to • 
 the people who were assisting him ; but " I purposely kept myself in ignorance 
 as to the identity " of these persons, said Houston. And these are the proofs 
 which Houston has destroyed in order to keep the world, as well as himself, in 
 ignorance! Houston was quite satisfied with Pigott's "strongly expressed"" 
 opinion that the letters were authentic. At any rate, Houston was zealous in 
 his work ; for he not only spent his own money in collecting compromising 
 documents which he might or might not be able to sell, but he also spent bor- 
 rowed money. And here he made the interesting disclosure that Sir Rowland 
 Blennerhasset lent him £']o, and Lord Richard Grosvenor ;!^45o. The second- - 
 named amount was lent in January or February, 1S86. Did the lender of the 
 ;!^45o know what the money was wanted for ? No ; at any rate, Mr. Houston. 
 *■' did not tell " the lender. " I said I wanted it for political purposes." 
 Having got at the alleged contents of the alleged black bag, how did Mr 
 
'Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. iFeh. 20. 149 
 
 ^.Houston try to dispose of them ? — Well, he consulted Lord Hartington as to 
 
 ■what he should do with them. But Lord Hartington would offer no opinion, 
 
 ■ This appears to have been during the period when The Times' decision as to 
 
 - whether it would take the letters or not was still in suspense. But, first of all, 
 jNIr. Houston applied to the editor of The Pall Mall Gazette. Had he asked 
 Mr. Stead if he could name some "Unionist" politician to whom he might 
 dispose of the letters? Had he said that he would produce proof that Mr. 
 John Dillon and Mr. Sexton were implicated in the Phoenix Park murders ? 
 Had he offered the letters to Mr. Stead for one thousand pounds ? Had the 
 editor of The Pall Mall Gazette said he had already lost so much money over 
 
 - another business that he could not afford to risk a thousand on Pigott's find ? 
 Mr. Houston's satirical remarks on that other business provoked a peal of 
 laughter. The usher shouted " Silence," but he might just as well have spared 
 .his breath and his frown. Mr. Houston was severe on Mr. Stead. Glancing 
 
 . scornfully at the editor of Tlie Pall Mall Gazette, he observed that he perceived 
 .a breach had been committed in the "honourable" understanding which 
 
 journalists should observe on matters of secresy. All this the editor of The 
 ' Pall Mall Gazette took somewhat irreverently; he laughed, as if it were capital 
 -fun. Mr. Houston can stand on his dignity, for when Sir Charles Russell, 
 
 humorously improvising an imaginary letter from Pigott to ]\Ir. Houston, began 
 ■*' Dear Mr. Houston," the said Mr. Houston promptly pulled up the renowned 
 
 • Q.C. with the correction that Pigott always addressed him as " Dear Sir." Sir 
 *Charles Russell will be more careful next time. 
 
 But though, apparently, Mr. Houston liked to keep Mr. Pigott at arm's- 
 ilength, socially speaking, he gave other illustrations, besides those narrated 
 . above, of his abounding faith in him. From the mode in which he paid Pigott 
 
 he had — as he admitted — no means of checking Pigott, if Pigott had put all the 
 Jinoney into his own pocket. Well, said Sir Charles, but was not your faith 
 •- somewhat shaken when you heard of Pigott's interviews with Mr. Labouchere? 
 
 Here Mr. Houston blushed, but smiled pleasantly enough, when he remarked, 
 -after a pause, "Well, I must admit the Labouchere incident somewhat shook 
 nny faith," at which admission there arose another burst of laughter. But Mr. 
 
 Houston has said repeatedly that his faith in Mr. Pigott was restored in conse- 
 -quence of the sworn declarations which Pigott had made subsequently to his 
 
 interviews with Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Lewis, and Mr. Parnell. And he ac- 
 
 • cepted Mr. Pigott's personal opinion as to the identity of the persons to whom 
 the compromising letters were addressed. Mr. Pigott felt sure the letters were 
 addressed to Egan, Byrne, Brennan ; and that was enough for Mr. Houston. 
 
 But there was, after all, one letter, or alleged letter, of one of Pigott's friends 
 which might prove useful. When cross-examined about The Pall Mall Gazette 
 interview, Mr. Houston remarked that if he had really said anything about the 
 connection of Mr. Dillon and Mr. Sexton with the Phoenix Park murder, he 
 must have said it on the authority of a formal statement which Eugene Davis 
 made in writing to Pigott in Lausanne, and which Pigott subsequently handed 
 
 • over to Houston. Produce it. This most important and interesting document 
 was produced by the Attorney-General. But it turned out to be a copy. Sir 
 Charles protested ; where was the original ? Why did the witness state in a 
 previous part of his evidence that he had given the original to Mr. Soames ? 
 The question was becoming complicated, for Mr. Houston now said that he 
 must have made a mistake in saying that he gave the original to Mr. Soames ; 
 but iVlr. Soames himself now declared that he had the original thirteen months 
 
 .-ago. Finally, it was arranged, after a long altercation, that Mr. Soames should 
 institute another search for the missing original ; and meanwhile the copy of 
 -the original was allowed to be read and " put in." One of Mr. Soames's clerks 
 
 . appeared in the box to testify that that was the very paper which he himself 
 
 .■had copied from the Davis-Pigott original. 
 
150 Thursday] Diary of [Feb. 21^ 
 
 It was curious reading. It occupied the Attorney-General fully twelve 
 minutes. In it Eugene Davis described how, as a Fenian, he had made, in 
 1 88 1, Egan's acquaintance (on the introduction of another Fenian, Pigott him- 
 self), how Egan gave him his entire confidence ; how Egan, Parnell, Brennan, 
 Matt Harris, Biggar, &c., were all active members of the Fenian Brotherhood; 
 how Parnell and the rest agreed that Land Leaguers and Fenians should be in 
 ccord as to their method of warfare against England ; how they agreed that, as 
 England and Ireland were practically at war, and as Ireland was unable to cope 
 with England in the field, the united leaguers and Fenians should have recourse 
 to "reprisals," including assassination of officials ; how after Mr. Parnell's 
 arrest, it was agreed that Egan and the other League leaders should carry on. 
 active operations — Mr. Parnell communicating with them from Kilmainham ; 
 how Egan remonstrated angrily with Mr. Parnell for his denunciation of the 
 Phoenix Park crime ; and hoAv Parnell explained his conduct in a letter from 
 Kilmainham (the letter of May 15, 1882, specially known as '^ the /acsz?;nle 
 ietter ") ; and finally how a plot was formed to murder Mr. Gladstone and the 
 Prince of Wales. This last statement was received in court with a loud burst 
 ©f laughter. All the above details Eugene Davis (according to Pigott's story) 
 professed to have received from Egan himself, years before Davis and Pigott 
 met each other at Lausanne. 
 
 And now — half-past one o'clock-— ISIr. Houston was released from the wit- 
 ness-box, and in the loud hubbub which followed, the name of " Pigott " was 
 shouted out — "Pigott," "Pigott." But Pigott was a long time in coming. 
 He came at last in the wake of the usher, who was laboriously elbowing his 
 way through the crowd. A short, stoutish, round-shouldered man is Pigott, 
 with a bald, shining head, bushy white whiskers and moustache, big, somewhat 
 irresolute mouth, big fleshy nose, and smalHsh eyes, far apart. "A benevolent- 
 looking person," one spectator remarked. " Might be a church deacon," ob- 
 served another. 
 
 The first portion of Pigott's evidence was mainly autobiographical. Coming 
 to the more immediate issue, he described how first he became acquainted with 
 Mr. Houston ; how reluctant he was to undertake the search for documents, 
 thinking it a hopeless enterprise ; how at last he thought of Davis, who used 
 to be a regular contributor to Pigott's own paper, T//e Irishman ; how, in 
 1 88 1, Egan, who was in Paris, wrote to him asking for Davis's address ; how, . 
 in 1886, he himself (Pigott) went to see Davis at Lausanne ; and how he got 
 ©ut of Davis the statement which we have already summarised. At this point 
 the examination of Pigott was suspended. 
 
 FIFTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 February 21. 
 
 " Yes," said Pigott, almost as soon as he entered the witness-box, " I have seen 
 in this morning's papers the reproduction of the statement which Davis made to 
 me in Lausanne." Again replying to the Attorney-General, he said the repro- 
 duction was correct. He described very briefly the course of his negotiations 
 with Eugene Davis in Lausanne, in January and Februaiy, 18S6. At first he 
 asked Davis if he had any details which he, Pigott, might use for publication 
 in an anti-Parnellite pamphlet ; but at the same time he said he would require 
 Mr. Davis to put his signature to the details, by way of authenticating them. 
 After seme delay and considerable reluctance (according to Pigott's^ account).. 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Coimnission, [Feb. 21. 151 
 
 Mr. Davis undertook to write the pamphlet, and Pigott got from him some 
 notes of what the pamphlet would contain. The notes jotted down on the 
 back of a letter were subsequently expanded into the Davis-Pigott statement 
 read in court yesterday, and published in this morning's papers. It was during 
 this interview with Davis in Lausanne that Davis alluded to " a letter " which 
 he believed to be still in existence — a remarkable letter from Mr. Parnell to (it 
 was believed) Egan, in which Mr. Parnell stated that ]\Ir. Burke "got no more 
 than his deserts." " This was the first time I ever heard of this compromising 
 letter," said Pigott ; and thenceforth it became the chief end of Pigott's existence 
 to find it. 
 
 Next followed the story of Pigott's marvellous luck. Shortly after his return 
 home from Lausanne, Pigott heard from Paris that certain Irish- Americans, 
 who might be useful to him in his researches, had just arrived there. So he 
 crossed over to Paris, and as he walked about the streets a man accosted him. 
 whom he once knew (though he had forgotten him) as Maurice Murphy, who 
 said that he had just come as an emissary from the Clan-na-Gael Brotherhood 
 in America. So Pigott told Murphy about his Lausanne adventure, and asked 
 him whether he knew anything of that astonishing letter of Mr. Parnell's. No ; 
 Murphy never had heard about it. 
 
 Days after that the pair met again, quite accidentally, and, wonderful to 
 relate, IMurphy announced that he had discovered the compromismg letter, and 
 that the compromising letter was in a black bag, which contained four more 
 letters of INIr. Parnell's, and six of Egan's, together with sundry newspapers, 
 and scraps from private account books. " I'm ready to buy them," said 
 Pigott, and under Murphy's guidance Pigott was enabled to peruse the docu- 
 ments. "These are they," said he, as the Attorney-General handed them over 
 for his inspection. 
 
 As soon as he saw the signatures in Paris, Pigott " certainly believed " them 
 to be genuine, but he could form no opinion whatever as to the penmanship of 
 the "bodies " of the letters. Pigott rushed back to London, told the news to 
 Houston, rushed back again to Paris, and would have clinched the bargain 
 there and then but for an unexpected accident. The Fenians in Paris would 
 not "sell." The Clan-na-Gael in America claimed the black bag as their 
 property, and Pigott must cross the ocean. AMiich he did, with a letter of 
 introduction from Murphy to Breslin. After eight days in America he returned 
 with his authorization — a letter from Breslin to Murphy. 
 
 But it was several weeks before he made use of it. Mrs. Pigott's illness 
 prevented him from going to Paris. At last he went, July lo, 1 886. He had 
 the greatest difficulty in finding Murphy, who had not given him any address. 
 But the Fates favoured him. He met Murphy in the street. But still Murphy 
 would not sell, without previous communication with persons unknown. 
 Murphy saw them, or said he did, and now he was ready to strike a bargain. 
 So Pigott telegraphed to Houston to come at once. Which Houston did ; and, 
 to cut a long story short, the bargain was concluded, and the money paid to 
 " the people downstairs " by the emissary upstairs, as already described. But 
 Pigott adds a detail not previously given by Houston. Pigott says, that before 
 the letters were handed over to him, he had to give his oath to the Clan-na- 
 Gael in Paris never to divulge the " source " from which he received them, 
 and never, should legal proceedings be taken, to appear as a witness in a court 
 of justice. At this there was an outburst of laughter, and Mr. Pigott himself 
 smiled. The place where Pigott said he took the oath was a private room in a 
 cafe in the Rue St. Honore. There were five men sitting round a table. All 
 they did was to make him " swear " on a Roman Catholic prayer book. 
 
 So much for the first batch of letters. A second batch followed, and a third. 
 And he came upon the second by a piece of marvellous luck, such as had 
 brought him face to face two years before, in the streets of Paris, with Murphy. 
 
152 Thursday] Diary of [Feb, 21. 
 
 Once upon a time he had been introduced to a certain Tom Brown by a man 
 named liayes, living in London. And in the beginning of 1888, whom should 
 he meet in Paris but this identical Tom ? And Tom exclaimed that Pigott 
 was the very 'man he had been looking for. ' ' Because," said Tom, " I have heard 
 you were on the. look out for documents, and I have discovered some." This 
 second batch contained three letters, two signed in Mr. Parnell's name, and 
 dated June 16, 1882 ; and one in Mr. Egan's name, professing to be addressed 
 to Carey, and dated October 25, 1881. For this batch Houston paid ;^500, 
 and;!^5o as commission to Pigott. [Total for the first two batches, £ii^^y 
 besides the travelling and incidental expenses.] And curiously enough Pigott 
 was conducted to the cafe in which he had taken his first oath ; and there he 
 repeated the oath before the same five men. This took place, said Pigott, in 
 January or February, 1 888, eighteen months after the supposed purchase of 
 the first batch. This second batch, like the first, was bought by T/ie Times 
 from Houston — and no question asked. In July, 1888, about six months after 
 the last-named transaction, Pigott, being again in Paris, was accosted by a man 
 whom he had never seen before, and who offered to sell him three letters. " I 
 have heard from Mr. Brown that you are a buyer," said this new vendor. This 
 third batch contained one letter said to be written by Mr. Davitt, one by 
 INIr. O'Kelly, and one by Egan ; this third letter, purporting to be from Mr. 
 Egan's place of business, was known as "the bakery letter." Houston 
 swallowed the batch from Pigott, and The Thnes swallowed it from Houston, 
 paying £2.Q)0 — and asking no questions ! 
 
 As to the suggestion thrown out by the other side, that jNIr. Pigott might 
 have forged all three batches, Mr. Pigott (replying to the Attorney- 
 General) declared that there was " certainly not " the shadow of a foundation 
 for the story. Pigott pronounced " not " with a short snort of disgust, and 
 rammed his hands into his pockets. 
 
 Now came one of the most amusing scenes in the day's proceedings. This 
 was the story of Pigott's interview with Mr. Parnell and Mr. Lewis, in Mr. 
 Labouchere's house, on the 24th of October last, about three months after the 
 sale of the last batch to The Times, and two days after the opening of the trial. 
 Just a month before the interview Pigott was subpoenaed by ■NIr. George Lewis 
 on behalf of Mr. Parnell. He had not yet been subpoenaed by The Times. 
 After the serving of this subpcrna by Mr. Lewis, Pigott, according to his own 
 story, received an intimation that an agent from Pat Egan was waiting for him 
 in London. Pigott went from Dublin to London. Sinclair, the alleged agent, 
 told him he was prepared to buy any compromising documents which he 
 (Pigott) might have in his possession, said he would give " a hea\y price for 
 them," and Sinclair also said that Mr. Labouchere was an "agent" of Pat 
 Egan's. The alleged potirparlers with Sinclair ended in Pigott's writing on 
 his own account (and, of course, without Houston's knowledge) to ]\Ir. Labou- 
 chere, asking for an interview. Then the Attorney-(^eneral read out Mr. 
 Labouchere's reply, in which the writer remarked that his house was the best 
 place for the rendezvous, because it was "certainly not watched." Mr. 
 Labouchere also suggested that Pigott should come by " the underground. " 
 ^Vhen the Attorney-General finished reading Mr. Labouchere's letter of invita- 
 tion, he invited Pigott to tell the rest of the story in his own way. 
 
 Said Pigott, it was Mr. Parnell who began the conversation. He declared 
 " they had proof in their hands which would convict me of having forged the 
 documents." And then, said Pigott, " Mr. Parnell also told me he had heard 
 of my desire to avoid giving any evidence at all, and he asked me how I pro- 
 posed to do that. I then suggested that as I had not been subpoenaed by The 
 Tivies, my non-appearance in the vvitness-box might be secured by '\lx. Lewis 
 withdrawing his subpoena. But Mr. Parnell did not see how Mr. Lewis could 
 do that." Mr. Parnell thought Pigott imist enter the witness-box in any case. 
 
Thursday] the Pavnell Commission. [Feb. 21. 153 
 
 And then, said Mr. Pigott, nodding, " ^Nlr. Labouchere took up the running" 
 — an expression which amused the Court. 
 
 It was now that the fun began. Judging from Pigott's story, Mr. Parnell 
 anust have been serious and stern, and Pigott could have had no difficulty in 
 making him out. But when Mr. Labouchere " took up the running," poor 
 Pigott became puzzled. Mr. Labouchere was "facetious." He must have 
 thought Mr. Labouchere was making fun of him. Mr. Labouchere advised 
 him to go straight into the witness-box and make a clean breast of the forgery. 
 For what inducements? "Why," Mr. Labouchere said, "that I should 
 become immensely popular in Ireland." " Mr. Labouchere also told me that 
 the mere fact of my having swindled T/ie Times would be sufficient to secure 
 me a seat in Parliament." Here Mr. Pigott's audience broke into a roar of 
 laughter. And next " Mr, Labouchere told me that if I chose to go to the 
 United States he would take care that I should be received with a torchlight 
 procession by the Fenian organization." "Of course I hardly believed Mr. 
 Labouchere could be serious." Mr. Labouchere, sitting in his corner, joined in 
 the merriment. For the first time since the trial began the President intervened. 
 *' I must say," said Sir James Hannen, "that whether this is true or not, it is 
 not a fit subject for laughter." 
 
 Mr. Labouchere's advice to Pigott was as unpleasant as it was precise. He 
 was to enter the box and swear to the forgeries ; " it is a very simple matter," 
 said Mr. Labouchere, " all you will have to do is to enter the court and take 
 your oath, and walk out. " Besides," said Mr. Labouchere, " the Commis- 
 sioners' certificate of indemnity will protect you." 
 
 Going on with his story, Pigott said that in the midst of the foregoing 
 colloquy he was surprised by the arrival of Mr. Lewis — surprised, because he 
 thought this was a secret meeting between the three. It occurred to Pigott 
 that this was "a plant." And this unlooked-for stranger, Mr. Lewis, began, 
 in his "severest manner," to charge him with having forged the letters himself, 
 and to advise him, as Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Parnell had done, to swear to 
 the forgery in the witness-box. When Mr. Lewis saw that his severity had no 
 effect upon me, said Mr. Pigott, he became " conciliatory " — he even " shook 
 hands. " And then Mr. Labouchere took Pigott outside the door and offered 
 him a thousand pounds if he would swear. But before Mr. Labouchere took 
 him outside, Pigott himself had said something about his having asked from or 
 liaving been promised by The Times a sum of five thousand pounds ; and, said 
 Pigott, "before Mr. Labouchere and I went outside I heard Mr. Lewis and Mr. 
 Labouchere discussing what they should offer me." Why did they go outside ? 
 Because, according to Pigott's story, jNIr. Parnell must not be told about any 
 such monetary transaction. Pigott, according to his story, thought Mr. 
 Labouchere's offer a handsome one. In fact, it was his impression that he led 
 ZSIr. Labouchere to think that the offer was accepted. But this could not have 
 mattered much, because as soon as they re-entered the room, Pigott — so he 
 said — declared that he would not for any amount of money enter the witness- 
 box to " swear to a lie." Well then, as Pigott would not swear to the forgery, 
 and as j\Ir. Lewis would not withdraw his subpoena, what was to be done ? 
 Mr. Lewis had already warned him that if he did not swear to the forgery " no 
 mercy " would be shown him, and he would be prosecuted for perjury and 
 forgery all the same. There was another course, Mr. Lewis thought ; " Let 
 Pigott write to The Times and confess that he himself forged the letters ; the 
 result will be that The Times will withdraw the letters and allow the whole 
 matter to drop." 
 
 Pigott then went on to describe a visit which Mr. Lewis paid him next 
 morning, and at which yix. Lewis offered to take his statement. Not having 
 promised (said he) a statement, he was surprised at Mr. Lewis's request. 
 . However, he made one ; and now the Attorney-General read it out in court. 
 
154 Thursday] Diary of [Feb. 21 - 
 
 In this statement Pigott was made to declare his belief that the letters were- 
 not genuine ; that their publication in The Times alarmed him ; and that he 
 had written to Archbishop Walsh, offering to help Mr. Parnell out of his 
 troubles. Was that in your statement, the Attorney-General asked. Pigott 
 answered emphatically, that he had told Mr. Lewis nothing of the kind. 
 I heard, said Pigott, that Mr. Lewis asked the Archbishop of Dublin for 
 certain letters which I had written to his Grace, but I learned that his Grace 
 refused. I never stated to Mr. Lewis, said Pigott, at a later stage in his 
 examination-in-chief, that the letters were forgeries, and that I knew them to 
 be forgeries when I bought them. 
 
 Concluding his stor)', Pigott said that he made on the 5th of November 
 a complete statement to Houston, and that this statement was embodied, at 
 Houston's instance, in a sworn declaration. "I always said I was anxious to 
 avoid giving evidence," said Pigott, at the finish ; "I had sworn secrecy, and 
 I expected "that the consequences of my breach of it would be serious." 
 
 As the Attorney-General, rearranging his gown, was slowly resuming his 
 seat, a loud murmur of conversation broke out over the court. It stopped 
 suddenly. Scarcely was the Attorney-General seated when Sir Charles 
 Russell stood bolt upright. He had a clean sheet of paper in his hand.. 
 "Take that" — holding it out rapidly: and he asked Pigott to writedown 
 a few words from his dictation. It was a dramatic opening. " He has him '' 
 — a barrister whispered, turning round to the present writer. The audience 
 saw that Sir Charles Russell was coming to the issue at once, and in the 
 silence one might hear a pin drop. 
 
 Pigott screwed his eyeglass into his right eye, took the sheet of paper and a- 
 quill, and sat down with his round broad back to the spectators. Write 
 — " livelihood " — " likelihood " — and your own name — " proselytism " — ■ 
 " Patrick Egan " — and the initials of Patrick Egan — and " hesitancy." 
 
 " Photograph them," said the Attorney- General, when the specimens of 
 Pigott's handwriting were handed up. Then Sir Charles and Pigott looked at 
 each other. "Do you remember having had correspondence with Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Egan about the purchase of your paper. The Irishman'^''' 
 exclaimed Sir Charles, sharply. Pigott paused. He twirled his eyeglass. He 
 was not quite sure. But at last he recollected his correspondence with both. 
 And his correspondence with Mr. Forster ? Yes — after another pause. Ever 
 offered any Irish Secretary any information for money? Not to the best of" 
 his belief. But at last he remembered that he had asked Sir George Trevelyan 
 for some pecuniary aid because of the support which he (Pigott) had given to 
 the agrarian legislation of the Government. In 1884 he gave information to 
 Earl Spencer. 
 
 And now for his correspondence with the Archbishop. Pigott changed 
 colour. Yes ; he had written to the Archbishop ; but that was under "the seal 
 of the confessional " — an assurance which Sir Charles received with a sceptical 
 little laugh. What was the correspondence about? "I asked his advice.*' 
 About what ? Was it not respecting " incriminatory matter " about Mr. 
 Parnell and others ? Pigott pondered for a minute or two. He looked down. 
 He looked up again, with a somewhat blank expression of countenance. Yes,, 
 it was. And the matter included the letters ? Yes — after another long pause. 
 Here the Court was wrought to the highest pitch of curiosity. And this 
 particular letter to the Archbishop was dated 4th of March, 1887, three days 
 before the series of The Times articles called " Parnellism and Crime " began ? 
 Yes. And so then Pigott was aware on the 4th of March that 77?^ 7?V;/^i-Avould,. 
 or might, print the incriminatory " letters " ? No, he was not. What ! was 
 he not aware that Houston had all those letters in his possession ready to 
 produce them, to the damage of Mr. Parnell and his associates? Again, a 
 long pause, after which Pigott admitted he " supposed " he was. Then Sir 
 
Thursday] the ParncU Commission. [Feb, 21. 155 
 
 Charles Russell began to read from the Pigott letter (marked "private and 
 confidential ") to Dr. Walsh. Did Pigott remember the passage in which he 
 said that proceedings were imminent which would destroy Mr. Parnell's 
 influence in Parliament. " AYhat were these proceedings ? " "Can't say." 
 Sir Charles stared at him. " I 'don't know really," pleaded Pigott, in a half- 
 audible voice. " Was it the letters? " " Can't say ; I thought it was the forth- 
 coming articles." "What ! have you not just said that you knew nothing 
 about the articles forthcoming in T/ie TimesV Pigott held his peace. "I 
 suppose I was mistaken," he said at last. 
 
 Sir Charles proceeded with his reading. Did Pigott say in his letter to Dr. 
 Walsh that Mr. Parnell would be accused of having "participated" in crime, 
 and that "criminal proceedings" might follow? "I won't swear," said 
 Pigott, after some reflection. Then Pigott admitted that if the letters w^ere 
 genuine they would prove ]\Ir. Parnell's complicity in crime. And did not 
 Pigott write to the Archbishop that he (Pigott) was in a position to prove all 
 he said, and to " show how the designs of Mr. Parnell's opponents could be 
 successfully combated, and finally defeated ? " Yes. But how could Pigott 
 do that if the letters were not forgeries ? At this question Pigott came to 
 a dead stop. He was utterly confused. He stammered ; he declared that 
 he could not have had the letters in his mind ; that the whole thing had passed 
 out of his recollection. 
 
 Sir Charles pressed his question. If the letters were genuine, what means 
 would Pigott have had of saving Mr. Parnell and his associates? " I can't 
 think." "Oh, yes; you must try." " I can't think." "You must think. 
 Had you any qualms of conscience ? All this happened only a short time ago. 
 No qualms? Then try and remember." "I can't." "Try." "I really 
 can't give any explanation." 
 
 Sir Charles went on with his reading. Had Pigott not asked Dr. Walsh 
 to introduce him to some one to whom he could show how the " blow " might 
 be avoided ? Pigott could not remember. Nor could he think what he meant 
 by the blow. " My memory is a perfect blank." Well, did he say in a 
 " P.S." to his letter to Dr. Walsh that, had he considered the accused really 
 guilty, he would not have troubled the Archbishop ; and that he was sure, if 
 they w^ere tried in an English Court, they would be convicted ? 
 
 This question was followed by a murmur of astonishment all over the court. 
 Pigott hesitated, Avrinkled his forehead, stammered, and at last declared that 
 he must have had in his mind some other charges more serious than the 
 letters — and that, in fact, he did not consider the letters to be so "serious" as 
 to justify the language of the postscript. A minute or two before, Pigott 
 declared that if the letters were genuine, they were sufficient to bring the 
 charge of coniplicity in crime home to Mr. Parnell and his associates. 
 
 But what were these other terrible secrets ? Pigott could not tell. Surely 
 the letters were serious enough, said Sir Charles ; they had at any rate cost 
 two thousand pounds. "Yes, they had," Pigott replied. " I say the Arch- 
 bishop has deceived me," said Pigott, moving about restlessly ; " I thought he 
 had returned me all my letters. " Then he said he did not believe the Arch- 
 bishop had ever sent him any reply. " Is not that the Archbishop's writing ? " 
 retorted Sir Charles. " It appears to be." "And if this other secret of yours 
 was locked up in your own bosom, where could the danger to Mr. Parnell be ?" 
 Pigott could not tell. All he could say was that when he wrote to Dr. Walsh 
 he must have had something in his mind " more serious " than the letters. 
 But as to who told him this other secret, or what it was, or where he learned 
 it, or how — Pigott's mind was a blank. " Hermetically sealed up in your 
 bosom?" "No; it has flown out of my bosom." In the roar of laughter 
 which followed, the day's proceedings came to an end. The judges themselves 
 laughed. And Pigott laughed with the rest — an irresolute, meaningless, 
 nervous laugh, while the heavy face flushed red with excitement. 
 
156 Friday] Diary of [Feb. 22. 
 
 FIFTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 February 22. 
 
 PiGOTT ended yesterday's part of his story with an explanation of what he meant 
 by the seriously compromising statements against which he wished to warn Mr. 
 Parnell through Dr. Walsh. It will be remembered that his first letter to Dr. 
 AValsh was written three days before the publication of the " Parnellism and 
 Crime " series was begun in The Times. Did Pigott mean " the letters" when he 
 warned the Archbishop against the dangers impending over the heads of Mr. 
 Parnell and his associates ? No ; it was some other secret danger of which 
 Pigott had become aware. " Hermetically sealed up in your bosom? " as Sir 
 Charles Russell observed when the Court arose. This, then, was the point at 
 which to-day's proceedings began — what, if they were not "the letters," were 
 the dangers, of which Pigott had been writing in mysterious terms to the 
 Archbishop? " Is that your handwriting? " asked vSir Charles, sharply, plung- 
 ing, without any preface, into business. Pigott stuck in his eyeglass, and 
 looked long and curiously at the paper. "Yes," he said. This letter was 
 Pigott's answer to the Archbishop's reply. In it Pigott said that he had 
 only thought the impending accusations against Mr. Parnell might be 
 forestalled by his (Pigott's) showing the accused the disgraceful means by 
 which the documentary and personal evidence against them had been pro- 
 •cured ; at any rate it would be useful to Mr. Parnell and his friends to know 
 beforehand the charges which were to be laid against them. 
 
 What have you to say to that ? asked Sir Charles Russell, after he had read 
 Pigott's letter. Pigott wanted to explain. And he "explained " himself, in a 
 long, hurried, stammering narrative, which sank at last into a half-inaudible 
 gabble difficult to catch. He "explained" that, having as a matter of fact 
 procured the letters and given them to Houston, and knowing their compromis- 
 ing character, he began to grow alarmed at the prospect of their disclosure — 
 because although it had been agreed he should never be called upon to give 
 evidence w-ith respect to them, he might now be forced to tell all he knew 
 about them. He further explained that when he first received them he was 
 given to understand that they never would be published. So, under the 
 circumstances, he wished to leave the country, and he wanted Dr. Walsh to 
 introduce him to Mr. Parnell, who might, perhaps, be prevailed upon to help 
 him with money, in return for the information he could give him as to the 
 source of the letters. 
 
 " And so it follows," said Sir Charles, " that since last night you have removed 
 from your bosom the idea that your letter to Dr. Walsh had reference to some 
 fearful secret not yet disclosed ? " "I shall say at once," answered Pigott, "that 
 what I wrote to Dr. Walsh was entirely unfounded. I only wrote as strongly 
 . as possible in order to make him interfere." Then Pigott had deliberately 
 written "lies"? No, he had only written "exaggerations," though he 
 immediately modified this correction by saying there was but little truth left in 
 the exaggerations. These communications with Di\ Walsh were followed by 
 two "statements," from Pigott. These statements do not appear to have 
 furnished Dr. Walsh with any additional information ; for in returning them to 
 Pigott the Archbishop wrote that he could not see how anything contained in 
 them would help Mr. Parnell " to expose the forger or bring the forger to 
 justice," and that any help which fell short of that would be useless. 
 
 Poor Pigott was, so to speak, falling to pieces. He was rapidly losing what 
 
 little presence of mind he had. Before Sir Charles Russell reached the end of 
 
 the Dr. Walsh portion of his case, he convicted poor Pigott of three or four 
 
 : gross lies at least. Thus, it appeared, from one of the Archbishop's replies to 
 
Friday] the Parnell Connnission, [Feb. 22. 157- 
 
 Pigott, that Pigott had assured him that he "had neither hand, act, nor part 
 in " the pubHcation of the alleged Parnell and Egan letters in The Times. 
 And this, in spite of Pigott's own story of his journeys to Paris, and the discovery- 
 of the miraculous black bag ! Pigott repeated the same disclaimer in equally- 
 strong language, in another letter to his Grace. And the disclaimer " was not 
 true?" exclaimed vSir Charles Russell, looking at his witness curiously, " N — • 
 no," muttered Pigott, reddening, smiling awkwardly, and moving about 
 restlessly. 
 
 Once more, in one of these later and despairing communications of his 
 to the Archbishop, Pigott had said that he did not believe the alleged " Parnell 
 letters " published in The Times were genuine ; but that he thought the Egan 
 letters were. The buyer of the contents of the black bag doubting the worth 
 of his purchase. " Did you ever tell Houston that you had any doubts," Sir 
 Charles asked him, sharply. "I never did," Pigott replied. Finally, Sir- 
 Charles asked him about the most interesting and famous of The Tiynes letters, 
 that particularly known as the "facsimile letter," apologizing for con- 
 demnation of the Phoenix Park murders. Of this famous letter, Pigott, as 
 Sir Charles Russell now showed, wrote to the Archbishop — " I am not the 
 fabricator of the published letter, as has been publicly circulated ; and I defy any 
 one to prove that I had anything to do with it. It is another instance of one- 
 having to suffer for the sins of others." At this picture of injured innocence, as 
 seen in the witness-box, the crowded audience laughed outright. And in deny- 
 ing that he had had anything to do with the notorious facsimile letter, Pigott 
 merely repeated his falsehoods. The main point, therefore, brought out in this 
 part of the cross-examination was that Pigott had expressly confessed to the 
 Archbishop his disbelief in the genuineness of the letters attributed to Mr. 
 Parnell.' But in the second place, by denying that he had ever had anything 
 to do with them, he convicted himself of falsehood. And, thirdly, the Pigott- 
 Walsh correspondence proved that Pigott was most anxious to escape from the 
 country. 
 
 Swiftly, pitilessly, the toils were closing round poor, dazed, wretched Pigott. 
 Sir Charles Russell produced a correspondence which had passed between 
 Pigott, Egan, and Mr. Parnell, in the years i88i, 18S2, principally with reference 
 to the purchase, by Mr. Parnell, of Pigott's paper The Irishman. Sir Charles's 
 object was to show by comparison between passages that the correspondence of 
 six or seven years ago formed the basis of the forgeries which appeared in The 
 Timesin 1887. The first of these old letters produced by Sir Charles Russell, was 
 one which Pigott wrote on the 27th of Feb., 1881, to Mr. Egan who was thert 
 in Paris. Just as Pigott in 1887 had written to Dr. Walsh warning him 
 against impending danger to Mr. Parnell and his cause, and offering to help 
 both (for a consideration), so this same Pigott wrote in 1 881 to Egan, giving 
 him warning of a damaging plot against the Land League, and offering to 
 avert the blow (for a consideration). Singular coincidence. Still more 
 singular was an identity between expressions of the letter of Egan in 1 88 1 and 
 of the letter to Dr. Walsh in 1887. I have had " neither hand, act, nor part "" 
 in the Parnell letters," said Pigott in 18S7. The Supreme Council of the 
 Fenian Society has neither " hand, act, nor part" in this attempt to expose the 
 financial mismanagement of the Land League, wrote Pigott to Egan in i88i» 
 The story of this attempt was a strange one. Two unknown persons had 
 called upon Mr. Pigott [so Pigott wrote to Egan] offering him five hundred 
 pounds if he would publish in his paper The Ii-ishtian, a damaging statement, 
 which they had in their possession, against the Land League. I believe their 
 statements are false, said Pigott, in his letter to Mr. Egan ; but I must have 
 money, and if you don't give it me, the mysterious strangers will. Not receiv- 
 ing a prompt reply from Mr. Egan, Pigott wrote to him again, enclosing a slip 
 of paper which he said was the written promise given him by the two strangers. 
 
158 Friday] Diary of [Feb. 22. 
 
 At this point Sir Charles Russell suddenly stopped. He handed the slip of 
 paper up to Pigott in the witness-box. "Do you know the handwriting," 
 exclaimed Sir Charles, darting a keen glance at Pigott. "No," answered 
 Pigott, again reddening, and looking slowly up, with an awkward, helpless 
 look, and his big, loose, weak mouth open. Then Sir Charles became ironical. 
 What were the mysterious strangers like ? Were they old, or young, or 
 middle-aged, or tall, or short, or masked, or unmasked ; and did they come 
 in the night-time, or in the daytime ; and did Pigott give them refreshments, 
 and was it after Pigott had his own refreshments, or before ? Sir Charles 
 kept up a brisk, running fire of such questions. And Pigott answered them, 
 recklessly, and as it were at random — looking more foolish and confused as 
 he went on. They were middle-aged, said Pigott, and they wore no masks, 
 
 and he gave them refreshments, and . " Come, now, Pigott," said Sir 
 
 Charles, interrupting him, "is this absurd story the creation of your own 
 brain ? " 
 
 And now came the comparisons between the genuine correspondence above 
 mentioned and the alleged forgeries. Here, for example, is one of the com- 
 promising letters published by The Tirnes and alleged by the defence to be a 
 forgery. It is dated June i8, i88i, and runs : " Dear Sir, — Your two letters of 
 1 2th and 15th inst. are duly to hand, and I am also in receipt of communica- 
 tions from Mr. Parnell informing me that he has acted upon my suggestion, 
 and accepted the offer made by B. You had better at once proceed to Dun- 
 dalk so that there may be no tinie lost. — Yours very faithfully, P. Eg an." 
 
 The letter to which it bears so startling a resemblance is the following 
 genuine letter, dated Paris iSth June, 1881, from Egan to Pigott, — "Dear Sir, 
 — Your two letters of 12th and 15th inst. are duly to hand, and I am also in 
 receipt of communications from ]Mr. Parnell, informing me that he has acted 
 upon my suggestion and accepted the offer made in your first letter. In fact I 
 have before me copies, &c. — P. Egan." 
 
 "Yes, very remarkable coincidence," muttered Pigott, in a mechanical sort 
 of way, repeating Sir Charles's expression. And then talking wildly, "so re- 
 markable as to be exceedingly improbable. " 
 
 Another coincidence, from the Egan correspondence, genuine and alleged. 
 One of Egan's supposed letters, published in The Tifiies, runs thus, — 
 "June 10, 1881. Dear Sir, — I am in receipt of your note of the 8th inst., 
 and am writing Mr. Parnell fully on the matter. He will doubtless com- 
 municate with you himself. — Yours very truly, P. Egan." The genuine letter 
 upon which the forgery is supposed to be based runs thus, "19 May, 18S1, I 
 am in receipt of your letter of the 1 6th instant, and in reply shall write to Mr. 
 Parnell as you request, and ascertain his view in regard to your proposal." To 
 mention one other instance of coincidence from the Egan correspondence, there 
 was a complete similarity between the beginning of the letter, in which Mr. 
 Egan declined Pigott's overtures about the two mysterious strangers [above 
 named] and the beginning of one of the alleged Egan letters in The Times. 
 Both letters began "as I understand your letter which reached me to-day ; " 
 one letter says that "under existing circumstances what you suggest would not 
 be entertained; " and the other, "under any circumstances I have no power 
 to so apply any of the funds of the League." 
 
 Sir Charles next pointed out extraordinary coincidences between expressions 
 in Mr. Parnell's genuine letters, and expressions in alleged letters of his which 
 he declares to be forgeries. On the i6th of June, 1881, Mr. Parnell wrote 
 from the House of Commons to Pigott in Dublin, in reference to the purchase 
 of The Irishman, — " Dear Sir, — In reply to yours of this date, I am sure you 
 will feel that I shall always be anxious to do what I can for you, but I could 
 not consent to one of the conditions of the purchase being your constant em- 
 ployment on the paper. That is a matter which should have to be subject to 
 
.Friday] the Pavncll Coimnission. [Feb. 22. 159 
 
 tifter arrangement." Now the "compromising letter " published in The Times 
 reads thus, — "June i6, 1882. — Dear Sir, — I shall always be anxious to have 
 the goodwill of your friends, but why do they impugn my motives ? I could 
 not consent to the conditions they would impose, but I accept the entire re- 
 -sponsibility for what we have done. — Yours very truly, Chas. S. Parnell." 
 Here there followed one or two amusing little "scenes "between Sir Charles 
 Russell and Pigott. When Sir Charles Russell twitted him on the ' ' anniver- 
 sary use " of so many phrases, Pigott tried to laugh with the audience and 
 failed. Then Sir Charles, leaning his back against the bench, helping himself 
 to a pinch of snuff, and shaking his brown pocket handkerchief, asked Pigott 
 how he would forge supposing, for the sake of argument, he wanted to. We 
 may quote part of the dialogue : — 
 
 Would it be anj^ help to you to have before you a letter of the man concerned ?— I suppose 
 so. 
 
 How would you use it ? — Take a copy, of course. 
 
 How would you proceed to do so ?— I can't say ; I don't pretend to any experience of that 
 kind. 
 
 But let us know how you would set about it ?— I decline to put myself in that position at 
 all. 
 
 Yes, but speaking theoretically ? — I don't see any good in discussing the theory. 
 
 Let me suggest, now. Would you, for instance, put delicate tissue paper over the letter — 
 would j'ou, in fact, trace it? — I suppose so. How \vom\6. yoie. do it? 
 
 No; I'm asking you. •Supposing_ you put delicate tissue paper over the genuine letter 
 that would enable you to reproduce its character, would it not? — Yes, that is the way. 
 
 How do you know? — Well, I suppose it would be the most easy way. 
 
 How do you know ? Have you tried ?— No ; but I suppose so. 
 
 Is Mr. Parnell's signature a difficult signature to imitate ? — I do not know. 
 
 But what do you think ? — It is a peculiar signature. 
 
 You mean it is a strongly marked one? Well, do you think it would be easy? — I am not 
 - competent to give an opinion. What is your opinion ? 
 
 I am very anxious to_ have your_s._ Would you think it a difficult or an easy signature to 
 imitate? — Considering its peculiarities, I should say difficult. 
 
 IMore difficult than a free, flowing signature ? — I think so. 
 
 Next came the spelling test. 
 
 Among the words 3-ou wrote down yesterday at my request is the word "hesitancy." Is 
 that a word you are accustomed to use ?— I often have used it. 
 
 Well, you spelt it as it is not ordinarily spelt.— Yes, I fancy I made a mistake in spelling 
 it. 
 
 What was the mistake? — I used an "a" instead of an "e " — no; I mean I . Well, I'm 
 
 not sure what the mistake was. 
 
 I'll tell you what was wrong. You spelt it with an " e " instead of an " a." H-e-s-i-t-e-n-c-y 
 is not the recognized spelling, I think. Now, have you noticed that the writer of the body of 
 ^the letter of the gth of January, 1882, makes the same mistake? 
 
 Yes, it has often been pointed out to me. In fact I think I had, owing to this having been 
 pointed out to me, got the mistake thoroughly into my head. But everybody spells the word 
 wrong. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell's declaration of the identity in spelling caused the greatest 
 excitement in Court. How could Pigott explain it away ? Pigott replied that 
 the mis-spelling in the alleged forgery had, in consequence of the public dis- 
 cussion on the subject, "got into " his " brain." But then, the self-same mis- 
 spelling occurred in a genuine letter of Pigott's of June, 1881. 
 
 Pigott was helpless; he could only say that spelling was not his strong 
 point. 
 
 WTiile all these comparisons between genuine letters and alleged forgeries 
 w^ere in progress, Mr. Wemyss Reid, Mr. Forster's biographer was in court, 
 engaged in selecting letters from a heap of correspondence that had passed 
 between Mr. Forster and Pigott in 1881-2. In fact, the opening letter of 
 the Forster-Pigott correspondence, namely Pigott's letter of June 2, 1881, had 
 already been read. In this letter, Pigott, recounting his journalistic services 
 .to the cause of law and order in Ireland, asked for'a Government subvention of 
 
i6o Friday\ Diary of [Feb. 22. 
 
 fifteen hundred or a thousand pounds — a request which Mr. Forster, though 
 expressing his approbation of Pigott's articles, refused to grant. Interrupted by 
 the foregoing cross-examination, the inquiry into the Forster correspondence 
 was now resumed. In a letter of the 6th of June, i88i, Pigott, regretting Mr. 
 Forster's first refusal, asked for a loan from Mr. Forster personally. Mr.. 
 Forster made him a kindly offer of a loan of fifty or a hundred pounds, telling 
 him he was to repay it at his convenience. Kindly Mr. Forster had said' 
 "fifty or a hundred," but his hardened applicant promptly asked for the 
 "hundred promised.'^ " Fifty would have suited me better than a hundred," 
 wrote Mr. Forster, when forwarding the larger sum, and suggesting an intro- 
 duction to Mr. Knowles of T/ie Nineteenth Centtuy. Pigott replied, in his 
 modesty, that he feared his style would prove too rugged for a London maga- 
 zine. And with heartfelt gratitude, he acknowledged the receipt of the hundred 
 pounds. Pigott's gratitude by and by manifested itself in a request for fresh 
 favours: in a letter of December i6, 1881, he described himself as utterly 
 penniless, and asked for a Government grant to enable him to go to America ; : 
 in a letter of the 25th of December, 1881, he had the insolence to write to Mr. 
 Forster, saying that he considered himself " badly used," because he had been 
 "led" to entertain "hopes "of adequate reward which had not been "ful- 
 filled." 
 
 Replying on the 26th of December, Mr. Forster said that he could notr 
 understand why Pigott considered himself unfairly treated ; that he had helped 
 Pigott purely out of sympathy; and that he must deny "in the strongest 
 terms," Pigott's assertion that Pigott had been employed to write for the 
 Government. The justice of this denial Pigott admitted in his next letter, but 
 he added that he thought he was entitled to some recompense from Government 
 for his services ; and that he would " loathe himself" if he " could even dream " 
 of expecting further assistance from Mr. Forster personally. And in less than, 
 a fortnight, Pigott, loathing to trouble Mr. Forster personally, asked Mr. 
 Forster to "induce " some of his colleagues to help him out to America and 
 save him from destitution. ISIr. Forster declined to trouble his colleagues ; 
 but, said good Mr. Forster, " I am willing to give you myself fifty pounds to en- 
 able you to go to America ; but it must be clearly understood that is all I shall 
 do." Pigott in reply " wanted words to express his gratitude." Pigott did not go- 
 to America : in course of time, he wrote to INIr. Forster, wondering how he - 
 could raise one hundred pounds, and whether Mr. Forster could negotiate with 
 Messrs. Macmillan, the publishers, for the purchase, at "a reduced rate," of a 
 book of Pigott's. In this same letter, Pigott wished to know whether Mr. 
 Forster would see somebody "connected with The Times,'''' with a view "to 
 getting a review of my unfortunate book into the paper." To this string of 
 cool requests ]Mr. Forster replied that he wished he could lend Pigott the 
 money ; but that he was unable. 
 
 Shortly after this, Pigott had an intei-view with Mr. Forster in London. It 
 was in August, 1882. Mr, Forster took the precaution of " having two gentle- 
 men in the room," as Pigott expressed. The precaution was too much for the 
 sensitive Pigott's feelings of honour, and he complained of it in his next letter 
 to Mr. Forster. So much hurt was Pigott at ]\Ir. Forster's display of caution 
 that he declared he could have no " peace of mind " until he had paid off his 
 debts to his benefactor. " Your peace of mind has ever since been wanting," 
 obser\'ed Sir Charles Russell. " Yes," was Pigott's reply. Said Pigott, after 
 the laughter in Court had subsided, " it may be extremely amusing to you ; it 
 is not amusing to me." And he might have added that it was " not amusing " 
 to his friends from The Ti?nes office, who were sitting right in front of him. 
 They took no part in the general merriment. 
 
 At last came the blackmailing letter. One day, Mr. Forster received a letter 
 which was signed " Nemo," and which said that a plot was on foot to injure him„ 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Feb. 26. 161 
 
 by bribing the late proprietor of T/ie Iris/iman [Pigott] to publish some of the 
 Forster letters. " Nemo " suggested that it would be well for Mr. Forster to 
 get his letters back ; and that an advertisement in T/ie Irish Times would 
 secure their recovery. Sir Charles Russell asked Pigott whether he recognized 
 any similarity between this threatening letter and the mysterious communica- 
 tion from the two mysterious strangers, which he, Pigott, had some time before 
 sent to Mr. Egan in Paris. Mr. Pigott's mind was a blank. 
 
 Long before this stage was reached, the densely packed audience in court 
 was wrought up to the highest pitch of amusement and excitement. The Court 
 Usher had long since ceased to cry out "silence." The merriment was irre- 
 pressible, and almost continuous. The judges themselves were unable to 
 repress their feelings. A loud, ringing roar of merriment broke forth, as 
 Sir Charles Russell read Pigott's next letter containing an application for 
 ;!^200 to enable him to proceed to Sydney, and some hints as to the pressure 
 which was brought to bear upon him to publish the Forster letters. Mr. 
 Justice Day, bending forward, reddened, and shook, with laughter. In this 
 letter, Pigott wrote — "I feel this is my last chance, and if that fails, only the 
 workhouse and the grave remain." Poor Pigott looked as if he would prefer 
 even the grave to the witness-box. He changed colour ; the helpless, foolish 
 smile flickered about the weak, heavy mouth ; his hands moved about rest- 
 lessly, nervously. Then came the climax — Pigott's letter to Mr. Forster, saying 
 that he felt tempted to reveal to the world how he had been bribed by Mr. 
 Forster to write against the interests of Ireland. The notion of Pigott's 
 appearing in the character of injured innocence set the audience off, once 
 more, into a fit of laughter. It was now four o'clock, and in the uproar and 
 confusion Pigott descended from his box, smiling foolishly, as he brought 
 down the fabric of The Times "letters" case in ludicrous ruin. 
 
 FIFTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 February 26. 
 
 The court room and corridors presented a most animated spectacle, for fully half 
 an hour before the judges arrived. The passages were thronged with people 
 who had no chance of entrance. Within, save for the few Press seats, whose 
 occupants had not yet arrived, there was not an inch of standing room. At 
 times the hubbub of talk was almost deafening. Mr. INIichael Davitt, 
 coming in about ten minutes past ten o'clock, carrying a black bag, in- 
 stantly attracted attention ; for it was known that since Friday afternoon he 
 had been out of the country, making inquiries into the Pigott mystery. Mr. 
 Parnell, as he stalked in, slowly elbowing his way through the crowd, looked 
 well satisfied. The flicker of a smile played round the corners of his eyes and 
 thick brown moustache. Mr. Biggar beamed. Only once or twice in the 
 course of the trial had Mr. Healy appeared ; now he appeared once more. 
 Mr. Wemyss Reid was in his place, ready to assist in further investigation of 
 the Pigott-Forster correspondence. Mr. Jacob Bright — seen in court for the 
 first time — stood in the crowd. In one of the Press seats to the right of the 
 judicial bench sat Mrs. Gladstone. The crowd was denser than on any day 
 since the trial began. 
 
 No wonder that the excitement is so great. In that dense throng there is 
 not one who does not fully expect that Sir Charles Russell is about to extract 
 from Pigott further statements as startling as any that he has yet made ; or even 
 
 12 
 
1 62 Tuesday] Diary of [Feb. 26. 
 
 that Pigott, seeing the toils closing round him, will throw the game up and 
 make a full confession. " Silence I " exclaims the black-robed usher, throw- 
 ing open the curtain behind their lordships' chairs : and the roar of talk 
 suddenly stops. We all rise as the judges enter. The President bows. 
 Their lordships sit down. Then we all sit. And Sir James Hannen, leaning 
 back, folds his arms. Usher number two stands at his post, at the corner of 
 the witness-box. After half a minute or so, Usher number two looks over his 
 spectacles in the direction of the doorway. Then he looks at Mr. Soames. A 
 minute passes. Sir James Hannen looks up inquiringly. He wrinkles his 
 brow, as if he means to say, " Mr. Attorney, we are waiting." Mr. Attorney, 
 understanding this, also wrinkles his brow, and looks round slowly, inquiringly, 
 but to all appearance without the slightest suspicion that anything is wrong. 
 Another minute, and still no Pigott. Then counsel begin to look anxiously 
 at one another, and whisperings run round the court. The President, frowning 
 a little, asks where is the witness ; and after a Httle pause, preceded by a hurried 
 and muttered conversation between the Attorney-General and Mr. Soames, the 
 Attorney-General rises. His face is pale — an unusual thing for Sir Richard, 
 and he speaks as if under a sense of pain and constraint — also an unusual thing 
 for him. There is a strange expression of helplessness in his tone as he briefly 
 and almost inaudibly announces that Pigott has not been seen since eleven 
 o'clock last night. 
 
 Pigott escaped ! And INIr. Parnell, !Mr. Davitt, Sir C. Russell, Mr. Lock- 
 wood, Mr. Reid, Mr. Healy, Mr. Labouchere, and the rest of them gazed 
 blankly at one another. The half-inarticulate murmur of surprise among the 
 spectators threatened to break into uproar, but subsided — on Sir Charles 
 Russell's prompt appeal to their lordships to issue a warrant for Pigott's 
 immediate arrest. The almost pleading tone of Sir Richard Webster's voice 
 contrasted strangely wdth the angry ring of Sir Charles Russell's, when Sir 
 Richard, rising slowly, said that one of jNIr. Soames's clerks was present who 
 would tell all he knew about Pigott. 
 
 The clerk's all was but little. Mr. George Weir, the clerk in question, 
 looked frightened as he felt all those hundreds of pairs of eyes fixed upon him. 
 He could only say that he was at Anderton's Hotel (where Pigott was putting 
 up) only twenty minutes ago ; that the hotel attendant searched all over the 
 place, and came back with the news that Pigott had not been seen since eleven 
 o'clock last night. Mr. Soames's clerk having left the box, the President 
 informed Sir Charles Russell that he had just given instructions for issuing a 
 warrant of arrest. What was to be done next ? The judges glanced at one 
 another. Sir Richard Webster and his colleagues sat mute as statues. At last 
 the President asked quietly, "Have you any other witness?" Upon this 
 Sir Richard Webster, rising slowly, simply remarked that the unexpected non- 
 appearance of Pigott made it necessary for him and his learned friends to 
 consider what their future course would be, and until they settled that point 
 they could not see their way to "recur to any other part of the case." "Is he 
 going to throw up the case? " was the question which, in one form or another, 
 flew about in hurried whispers all over the court. Sir Charles Russell was up 
 in a moment, with his right arm extended. " Whatever you may do," said he, 
 " we shall search this matter to the bottom, for we deliberately say that behind 
 Houston and Pigott there is a foul conspiracy." And as the words "foul con- 
 spiracy " rang out sharply, indignantly, down came Sir Charles Russell's hand 
 with a thud upon the bench. 
 
 At this point their Lordships rose to adjourn for fifteen minutes. If at the 
 end of fifteen minutes Pigott should not be found the adjournment would be 
 prolonged to thirty minutes. Just as the judges were retiring, Sir Charles 
 Russell hurriedly informed them that a parcel of letters addressed to Pigott, to 
 the care of Houston, had been received at Anderton's Hotel j and he suggested 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Coinuiission. [Feb. 26. 163 
 
 that the parcel should be sent for and placed in the possession of the Court. 
 The adjournment, instead of lasting fifteen minutes, lasted an hour. The 
 .news having gone abroad that Pigott had run away and that the proceedings 
 were in a state of confusion, great numbers of eager people rushed in from the 
 'Other courts. In a minute or two after the judges retired, the Attorney- 
 ' General and the whole body of 77^^? Times counsel disappeared for a time. 
 And in Mr. Attorney's place sat ^Ir. Lockwood. He scribbled and scratched 
 .away at something, perhaps a caricature of Sir Richard and Mr. Alurphy, 
 'Q.C., in distress. Then, in about twenty minutes, The Times counsel 
 returned to their places. Mr. Soames reappeared, looking sad, weary, and 
 bored. In Mr. Soames's wake followed Sir. Macdonald, of Tke Ti/nes. 
 Alas ! in Mr. Macdonald's face not a trace left of the self-complacence which 
 it wore when from the witness-box he showed how, though the Parnellite 
 lawyers were dull fellows, there was at least one man . in the world who 
 could see through conspirators' forgery tricks. The manager of T/ie Times 
 :sat down submissive to the ironical Fates. And so the laughing and the 
 talking went on. It stopped for a moment when the Clerk of the Court, 
 Mr. Cunynghame — like somebody emerging from the under world — stuck out 
 his head through the doorway in the screen beneath the judicial bench, and 
 announced that the warrant for Pigott's arrest had been made out, and that 
 the execution of it would be entrusted to Mr. Monro, conjointly with any 
 police officer whom Sir Charles Russell might name. ]Mr. Lewis suggested 
 JNIr. Shore, of Scotland Yard. In another quarter of an hour the judges came 
 in. After a few minutes' preliminary discussion, Sir Charles Russell made a 
 wholly unexpected announcement. Last Saturday, said he, Richard Pigott, 
 without invitation from anybody, called upon Mr. Labouchere in Mr. Labou- 
 chere's house, and there and then offered to make a full confession. 
 
 And Mr. Labouchere, Sir Charles went on, would hear nothing from 
 Pigott except in the presence of a witness. Mr. Labouchere accordingly sent 
 for Mr. George Augustus Sala, and Mr. Sala heard all that passed. And in 
 the presence of Mr. Labouchere and ^^Ir. Sala, Pigott confessed that he was 
 the forger, and he signed a statement to that effect, but this statement Mr, 
 Lewis returned, on Alonday, to Pigott with an intimation that Mr. Parnell 
 would have nothing to do with him directly or indirectly. 
 
 Sir Charles was asked why all this was not put in affidavit. To which he 
 replied that, for one thing, he had come that morning prepared to resume his 
 cross-examination of Pigott. Quick as thought Mr. Justice Smith broke in 
 with the remark, "What, you expected to see Pigott after that confession?" 
 But Sir Charles Russell was as prompt as Mr. Justice Smith. " Certainly, my 
 lord," he replied, " I did expect ; for Pigott was under the guardianship of a 
 Royal Irish constable and two detectives from Scotland Yard ; " and Sir 
 Charles instantly followed this up with a request that the police officers should be 
 placed in the box to explain how Pigott escaped from their guardianship. 
 
 It was evident that Sir Charles Russell had made up his mind to give no 
 quarter. Meanwhile the manager of Anderton's Plotel appeared in court. As 
 for Pigott's disappearance, all that the manager could say was that Pigott 
 was last seen in the hotel about half-past four o'clock on Monday afternoon. 
 Their lordships then read through certain letters, which, addressed to Pigott, 
 reached the hotel after he left. Sir James Hannen then stated that they were 
 private letters, and that the only thing of any consequence in them was a single 
 " P.S." But it was a suspicious P.S. Here it is : "I done what you asked 
 with the box. All is consumed." 
 
 The letter with the P.S. was from Pigott'shousemaid in Kingstown, near Dublin. 
 " All is consumed " — an inarticulate exclamation of surprise broke out among the 
 -audience, at this next disclosure of the destruction of evidence. 
 
 In answer to Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Soames — summoned once more into 
 
164 Tuesday] Diary of [Feb. 26. 
 
 the V ilness-box— admitted that he had never made any inquiries into Pigott's- 
 character. Mr, Soames had had too much of other work to do — his labours on 
 the Commission occupied him fourteen hours a day ; and as for keeping an eye- 
 on Pigott, he did it after he heard that he had been in communication with Mr.. 
 Labouchere. 
 
 Have you, asked the Attorney-General, done anything directly or indirectly 
 to help Pigott to escape?" "Most certainly not," Mr. Soames answered, as- 
 he turned to leave the box. 
 
 Then came Shannon, the Dublin solicitor who has been assisting Mr. 
 Soames. Shannon is a tall, black-haired, pale-complexioned man, with a 
 softish voice, and dark eyes that move slowly from side to side as if they were 
 always on the search for something. He said that at Pigott's own request he 
 saw Pigott at Anderton's on Saturday night ; that on Saturday night Pigott 
 made a full confession to him, a confession including the Labouchere-Sala 
 mterview ; that the confession was then sent in writing, on Sunday morning, to 
 the witness (Shannon). 
 
 In this last of his "confessions," poor, weak, despairing Pigott declared that 
 instead of having forged all the documents (as in his confession to Messrs. 
 Labouchere and Sala he said he had done) he had only forged two in the 
 second batch and two in the third ; that, as regards the first batch, the most 
 important of all, containing five of Mr. Parnell's and six of Mr. Egan's, he 
 (Pigott) had in truth got at them in the way he had described in his evidence,, 
 and that he believed the eleven letters to be genuine. Pigott, in this confession, 
 w^ent on to say that he feared he would be prosecuted, and that Mr. Labouchere 
 promised him that he would not be prosecuted if he confessed to having forged 
 all the letters ; and also that Mr. Labouchere promised him the Parnel- 
 Jites would give two thousand pounds for the maintenance of his children. 
 The statement ended with an abject confession that he had been drawn into 
 forgery by penur}-, and with an equally abject appeal to the mercy of TAe 
 Times. Finally, Pigott signed an affidavit to the effect that this, his last 
 statement and confession to Shannon, was true in every particular. 
 
 " Did you consider that an affidavit lent any additional sanctity to Pigott's- 
 statement ? " exclaimed Sir Charles, quickly, pointedly, as he rose up to cross- 
 exarnine Shannon. Shannon, moving his dark eyes slowly from side to side, 
 replied that he considered it did. Gazing fixedly at Shannon, and pausing for 
 a little space. Sir Charles put the following question, in a low voice, "You 
 notice Pigott says he fears prosecution. Did not that strike you ?" And then 
 Sir Charles pressed him ; "did it not arouse a suspicion of Pigott's intention to- 
 run away?"^ "Were you anxious that Pigott should appear?" Sir Charles, 
 exclaimed, raising his voice to its highest pitch. "I was," replied Shannon ; and' 
 then he admitted that he had neither taken any precautions against Pigott's 
 escape, nor warned Mr. Soames. And yet Pigott feared prosecution for forgery 
 and perjury ? He might have feared prosecution by the Government, said 
 Shannon, a remark that provoked a loud burst of laughter throughout the 
 Court. 
 
 Shannon then declared he fully expected Pigott to appear that day, and that 
 he was sure Pigott was still in London or near it. When did Shannon see 
 Pigott last ? Why, two hours before Pigott fled ; and in that last interview 
 between Pigott and Shannon, Pigott pressed hard for money — money where- 
 with to pay his hotel bill, as if there Avere some pressing necessity for payment. 
 "And didn't that seem strange to you," asked Sir Charles, quietly. No. 
 *' Didn't you think he might be wanting it in order to cut? " No. " Didn't 
 it seem singular to you that he should press you so hard?" No. "Well, well !" 
 And then it turned out that this last interview was held, not in Anderton's 
 Hotel nor in Shannon's rooms, but in some strange place not named before. 
 
 It was now a quarter to two o'clock. The judges rose for the usual half- 
 
Wednesday] the Pavnell Commission. [Feb. 27. 165 
 
 -liour's interval. The densely-crowded court squeezed itself out, with a loud 
 •uproar of chatter and laughter — out into the corridors. In the Strand, in 
 front of the court buildings, multitudes of people were moving about in a great 
 state of excitement. A loud roar of a cheer was raised in honour of somebody 
 who did not turn out to be Mr. Parnell. The gamins in the crowd were 
 running about shouting bogus news about the capture of Pigott. " There's 
 Pigott," and in an instant a crowd of over a hundred and more was blocking 
 -the approach to the refreshment bar, nearly opposite the corner of Holywell 
 ■ Street, and peering at somebody not at all unlike Pigott, a stoutish, grey 
 whiskered gentleman harmlessly consuming his bun. 
 
 At fifteen minutes past two the Court resumed. Mr. Lewis, going into the 
 witness-box for a few minutes, stated that, in expectation of Pigott's appear- 
 .ance that day, he had procured evidence from Glasgow to show that Pigott 
 had been a systematic forger of money bills during a long series of years, 
 and that Pigott was a dealer in obscene books — a trade with which Pigott's 
 journeys to Paris in search of the " black bag " might all the while have been' 
 ^connected. After Mr. Lewis followed Constable Callagher, of the Irish 
 Constabulary, one of the two employed in looking after Pigott. He had very 
 little to say. Then Sergeant Fawcett went into the box. Sergeant Fawcett 
 was the last who saw Pigott. He saw him between three and four. He saw 
 Pigott go upstairs (in the hotel), write a letter, and come down, and walk out 
 -streetwards and disappear. But Fawcett did not follow. 
 
 "Now, Mr. Attorney," said Sir James Hannen, after Fawcett had finished 
 -his brief story. Mr. Attorney was explaining what be would do, in the event 
 •of Pigott's reappearance. " First catch your hare," interposed the President ; 
 and Sir Richard stopped. " What we propose to do," said Sir Charles, " is to 
 .apply at once for a warrant of arrest on the charge of forgery and perjury 
 .against Pigott." The Court then adjourned. In a minute or two, with a 
 cheering multitude behind them, ]Mr. Parnell, Mr. Lewis, Mr. Campbell, Mr. 
 Davitt, Mr. Labouchere, were on their way to Bow Street police-court. There 
 Mr. Vaughan gave Mr. George Lewis a warrant for the arrest of Pigott, on a 
 •.charge of forgery and perjury. 
 
 FIFTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 February 27. • 
 
 •"Pigott been heard of?" was the universal question among the crowd of 
 people who for nearly an hour before the doors were opened to-day, con- 
 -gregated in front of the Strand entrance. Some wondered whether Pigott 
 might not have done away with himself. " He is too stupid," " He is too 
 •thick-skinned," " Hasn't shame enough," were specimens of the answers and 
 •comments. At last came the hurry and the scurry towards the corridors, 
 which were speedily blocked. Of the Irish members Mr. T. Healy was 
 .the first to arrive. He and Mr. Labouchere sat together at the end of the 
 .•solicitors' bench, Mr. Biggar followed, and at once became absorbed in 
 -the columns of a newspaper. Mr. Jacob Bright and Sir Charles Russell 
 •entered ten minutes before the half-hour. Mr. Sexton, who appeared in the 
 Court for the first time three or four days ago, sat down unobserved among 
 .the Q.C.'s. Mr. Michael Davitt was all the more conspicuous by his ab- 
 .sence, because, ever since the trial began, his attendance in court had been 
 punctual and regular. Mr. Soames came in with the air of a man attending a 
 
1 66 ]]^ednesday] Diary of [Feb. 27- 
 
 funeral of dead reputations. And ISIr. J. C. Macdonald, taking his seat on Mr_ 
 Soames's left, found himself side by side with his long-suftering and patient 
 victim, now his contemptuously indifferent victor, Charles Stuart ParnelL 
 "Well, the philosopher must have remarked to himself, who observed that 
 interesting pair, if ever there was in this puzzling Unii-erse a case of poetic 
 justice, surely there it is. 
 
 Mr. Parnell looked just middling well. While he quietly examined the 
 contents of his black bag, or turned to exchange a ^\ ord or two with Sir Charles 
 Russell, his next neighbours — Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Soames — sat, with their 
 arms folded, mute, gazing blankly in front of them. Now and again Mr. 
 Parnell, who rose a head and shoulders above them, gazed over the crowns of 
 their heads. He appeared to be as unconscious of the presence of Mr^ 
 Soames and INIr. ISlacdonald, as if ]\Ir. IMacdonald and Mr. Soames were in 
 the moon. And, indeed, there was between Mr. Parnell and the gentlemen at 
 his right, an inter\-al immeasurable in miles. For want of something better to 
 do, one took stock of the outward man of this real leader of men, whose 
 dignified patience under charges the most foul was at last filling the minds even, 
 of his enemies with remorse. One noticed that INIr. Parnell looked a trifle 
 younger. On further reflection one ascribed this impression to the fact that Mr- 
 Parnell had had his hair trimmed. Idle conclusion — though not less idle than 
 the question in ever}'body's mind, What of Pigott ? IMr. Parnell wore a. 
 reddish brown cloak, or cape, which fell awry over his shoulders, and of 
 which he was as careless as Sir Henry James of his silken gown. 
 
 Punctually at half-past ten o'clock their lordships entered. ^Ye all stood up^ 
 Sir James Hannen bowed gravely. Then their lordships sat down. After a 
 few moments' pause, Sir James Hannen glanced at the Attorney-General.. 
 Whereupon ]\Ir. Attorney rose. And he did it as if it were sorely against. 
 his will. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster merely informed the President that a letter had been, 
 received from Paris, to the address of Mr. Shannon, in Pigott's handwriting. 
 " ]t has not been opened," said Sir Richard, holding out the letter, " and E 
 desire to hand it in to your lordships at once. Immediately on the fact being^ 
 known, a communication was sent to Scotland Yard by T^Ir. Soames, giving; 
 information. Perhaps you will look at this document." The letter was passed 
 lip to the President. Sir James Hannen, glancing rapidly over it, passed it 
 down to IMr. Cunynghame, and asked him to read it. It was from Pigott. It 
 contained Pigott's lull confession which he made last Saturday before Mr^ 
 Labouchere and Mr. Sala, and which Mr. Lewis returned to him at once 
 with the intimation that Mr. Parnell declined to have any further communi- 
 cation with him, directly or indirectly. Besides this long confession, there wa» 
 one other document. It had the virtue of brevity. It was a hurried little note 
 from Pigott to Shannon, saying that Pigott " would write again soon." This, 
 cool, easy assumption of Pigott's, that Pigott would be at liberty to write 
 " soon," and in absolute security from the detectives much amused the 
 audience. Pigott was writing comfortably from his Paris hotel. How~ 
 did he find the money to get there? When, on Saturday, Sunday, and 
 Monday, he dunned his colleagues for money, he declared he had not sixpence 
 in the world. 
 
 ISIr. Cunynghame read out the confession. He once or twice came to a dead" 
 step over the Pigott manuscript. It appeared that the Pigott confession, as 
 returned to Pigott by INIr. Lewis, reached Pigott just when he was on the point 
 of saying good-bye to Anderton's hotel. He must have slipped it into his 
 pocket ; and as soon as he was comfortably settled in his Parisian quarters, he 
 must have reposted it to Shannon. The confession, dated last Saturda)- — the 
 day of the interview — declared that "I, Richard Pigott, am desirous of 
 making a statement before Henry Labouchere and George Augustus Sala,'" 
 
Wednesday^ the Parnell Connnissioii. [Feb. 27. 167 
 
 and that " I make this of my own free will and without any monetary induce- 
 ment, in the house of the former," and that "my object is to correct in- 
 accuracies in the report of my evidence in T//e Times, and to maice further 
 disclosures " about the facsimile and other letters. With this preamble, this 
 stupendous rascal entered upon his "corrections," and next upon the authorship 
 and methods of the forgeries. First as to the corrections, as read out by Mr, 
 Cunynghame. I told a lie, wrote Pigott, when I said that I took notes, on 
 the spot, of conversations with Davis in Lausanne. Davis, in fact, had only 
 given Pigott vague hearsay, from which Pigott, next day, concocted the story 
 which he had palmed off upon T/ie Times. Nor had Davis said anything 
 about a damning letter of Mr. Parnell's (afterwards known as the facsimile 
 letter) believed to be in the possession of a runaway Invincible living in Paris ; 
 that, at any rate, was Pigott's " opinion," as set forth in the confession which 
 Mr. Cunynghame was now reading in Court. These were the leading 
 "corrections." 
 
 It will be remembered that after the confession before Mr. Labouchere and 
 Mr. Sala, Pigott made a qualifying confession to Mr. Shannon, in which he 
 declared that he had only forged four letters in all, two in the second batch, two 
 in the third. But in the confession made to Messrs. Labouchere and Sala, now 
 read out by Mr. Cunynghame, Pigott averred that the first batch, the most im- 
 portant batch of all, the batch containing the facsimile letter, and four other 
 letters of Mr. Parnell's, and six of Mr. Egan's, were forgeries hkewise. "No 
 one save myself was engaged in the work," says this amazing sinner. "I 
 grieve to have to confess that I myself forged them." There was a ripple of 
 laughter at this unbosoming of Pigott's grief. Then the forger went on to 
 describe how, from genuine letters of Mr. Parnell's, he "picked out words and 
 phrases to secure the proper handwriting." "I traced," said he, "some of 
 the words by placing the letters to the window and drawing them on to a piece 
 of tissue paper, and I thus procured the signatures." 
 
 Will those who were present in Court during the memorable Friday (last 
 Friday) recall that very dramatic incident, when Sir Charles Russell, suddenly 
 leaning his back against the bench, invited Pigott in a cheery, confiding way, 
 to describe how he would forge a signature, supposing, just for the sake of 
 argument, that he had to try it? " Come now, Mr. Pigott, how would you do 
 it? Take a piece of tracing paper and lay it over a genuine letter?" and, 
 &c. That sudden question might have upset any forger who, unlike Pigott, 
 was not gifted with a hide of iron and front of brass. It will be remembered 
 how Pigott flushed for a moment or two, and then recovering himself tried to 
 turn the tables upon the terrible Q. C. by asking him how he would do it after 
 he got his tracing paper. But let us proceed. According to the statement 
 read out by Mr. Cunynghame, the "black bag" was a figment of the Pigottist 
 fancy. Houston accepted the contents of the black bag, after a "very brief 
 inspection," and the spoil — five hundred pounds for the mysterious owners of 
 the black bag, and a hundred guineas for the loyal Pigott — all went into Pigott's 
 pocket. " The second batch of letters were also written by me. I do not 
 remember where I got Egan's letter from. ... I had no specimens of Camp- 
 bell's handwriting beyond two letters of ]Mr. Parnell." For this batch he got 
 two hundred and fifty pounds — which all went into Pigott's pockets. The 
 third batch contained a letter which Pigott imitated from a letter in pencil 
 that Mr. Davitt once wrote to him. The "O'Kelly" letter he forged from 
 a genuine letter which Mr. O'Kelly wrote while he was still at work on The 
 Irishman. For this third batch, Mr. Houston paid two hundred pounds. It 
 will be remembered how, in his story, as given in the witness-box, the self 
 sacrificing Pigott stated that he had to be content with half commission for this 
 third batch. The knave pocketed every farthing of the two hundred. It will 
 also be remembered how, when Pigott, in his cross-examination, spoke of his 
 
1 68 ]Vcd}icsday] Diary oj [Feb. 27. 
 
 poverty, Sir Charles Russell exclaimed, " What, after all that money from T/ie 
 TimesP^ If "all that money" meant only Pigott's "commissions," there was, 
 certainly, but little of it. But if it meant the seventeen hundred and eighty 
 pounds, why the starving Pigott must have been fairly well off. 
 
 The next most remarkable thing in the confession was Pigott's indignation 
 at Houston, on account of that gentleman's "breach of faith" (in divulging 
 Pigott's name to T/ie Tiines). Having given vent to his grievance against 
 Houston, and made the interesting disclosure that he told another He when he 
 said that he had destroyed all the letters which Houston had written to him, 
 Pigott signed his confession in the presence of Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Sala. 
 What of those Houston letters which were not destroyed? "I have some of 
 them," said Pigott to Mr. Labouchere and his friend. 
 
 When Mr. Cunynghame finished his reading, there was a rather awkward 
 pause. It seemed longer than it really was, for most people felt for the Attorney- 
 General. The silence in Court as Sir Richard Webster stood up to address 
 their lordships, was positively painful. In a low, deliberate, measured voice — 
 as if he were carefully considering every word he was uttering — the Attorney- 
 General announced that he and his learned friends had " communicated " with 
 those for whom they appeared ; that they now admitted that no one ought to 
 attach any weight to Pigott's evidence ; that, therefore, he and his learned 
 friends "begged permission to withdraw the question of the genuineness of the 
 letters which have been submitted to you, the authenticity of which is denied, 
 with the full acknowledgment that the evidence does not entitle us to say that 
 they are genuine," Here Sir Richard paused for a moment. One could hear 
 the whisper, among the spectators, " Is that all ? " Sir Richard proceeded to 
 say that he was requested by The Times to express its "sincere regret" for the 
 publication of the letters. A fuller expression of regret will, he continued, be 
 made by The Times people themselves. Sir Richard next made some remarks 
 on Sir Charles Russell's now famous exclamation, "foul conspiracy." "I 
 desire emphatically," said the Attorney-General, " to say that if any foul con- 
 spiracy exists, then those whom we represent have had no share in it." 
 
 Then rose Sir Charles Russell. He went straight to that very expression of 
 the Attorney-General's which all who listened to Sir Richard Webster must 
 have foreseen would be selected for special comment by Sir Charles Russell. 
 " Not entitled to state that the letters were genuine," said Sir Charles, with 
 slow emphasis. " I had hoped for a stronger statement from my learned 
 friend." A murmur of approval throughout the Court followed that comment. 
 " But whatever," and here Sir Charles Russell slowly raised his hand, "but 
 w^hatever the course he adopts, it will in no jot alter the course which my clients 
 will take. They will not only go themselves into the box when the proper 
 time comes, but they will also ask your lordships whether it is true that the 
 young man Houston, the alleged journalist and secretary of the Irish Loyal and 
 Patriotic Union, embarked on this venture solely." 
 
 Sir Charles then asked their lordships to make a prompt declaration of their 
 opinion about the letters, "so as to give without delay relief to one man particu- 
 larly who had suffered to an extent which may be conceived, but which is difficult 
 to describe — who has held a pubhc position, and who has suffered the unmerited 
 wrong of lying under this grievous accusation. I ask that he may be speedily 
 relieved from such a gross and unfounded imputation." The "one man in 
 particular," ■Nlr. Parnell, was sitting in front of Sir Charles. Just before Sir 
 Richard Webster ended his address, Mr. Parnell turned round towards Sir Charles 
 Russell and gave him a printed document, putting his forefinger upon a par- 
 ticular passage. The document was a copy of the vSpecial Commission Act, 
 and the passage pointed out by Mr. Parnell was that which empowers their 
 lordships, "if they think fit," to "make report from time to time." This, then, 
 was what Sir Charles Russell had in his mind when he begged their lordships 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Mar. i. 169 
 
 -for their prompt declaration on the forged letters. Sir James Hannen replied 
 
 • at once. He suggested that Sir Charles should now call his witnesses, and 
 that after their evidence was taken the Commissioners " would consider the 
 propriety of making a special report." Thereupon Sir Charles Russell, 
 looking down at Mr. Parnell, nodded slightly, and pronounced Mr, Parnell's 
 name. 
 
 The next moment the tall figure of Mr. Parnell stood in the witness-box. 
 After the extraordinary story which has gradually been unfolding itself for so 
 many days, it is almost needless to say that Mr. Parnell's examination was 
 little more than formal. Sir Richard Webster did not cross-examine. And as 
 for Sir Charles Russell, he confined himself to putting a few categorical ques- 
 tions, repeated almost word for word, as each forged letter was, in its turn, 
 passed on for Mr, Parnell's inspection. Behind Sir Charles Russell sat Mr. 
 Asquith with all three batches before him. Mr. Asquith handed each letter to 
 Sir Charles Russell, who, after glancing at it, passed it on to the witness-box. 
 Here are some of Mr. Parnell's answers, which will give a general idea of the 
 questions and replies : — " It is not my signature ; " " It is not like the writing 
 of any person I know ; " "I never wrote any such letter; " "This is not Mr. 
 Campbell's writing ; " "I think this is the best imitation of Mr. Campbell's 
 writing in the series;" " Neither is this Mr. Egan's writing." Before giving 
 his answers, Mr. Parnell looked over each letter deliberately. Some of his 
 answers were given in the identical words of their respective questions, thus, 
 *' Is this your signature?" — " It is not my signature." Or, again, "Did you 
 ever write any such letter?" — "I never wrote any such letter." But the 
 
 • effect of the answers lay in their tone and manner. Each word was pro- 
 nounced slowly, distinctly, deliberately, in the low, gentle tone which is so dis- 
 tinctive of Mr. Parnell's voice. It may seem sentimental to say it — and 
 especially when saying it respecting a man who can be the sternest of the 
 stern, and among whose great gifts are an iron will and resolution ; but senti- 
 mental or not, there was a touch of true pathos in the scene — Mr. Parnell, with 
 the signs of patient suffering still on his refined face, confronting — victoriously, 
 indeed, but with an air of what remote indifference ! — the men who had 
 laboured so long to blacken his name and ruin his career. Of feeling of 
 triumph there was, in the pale countenance and calm gaze, not a trace. 
 
 FIFTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 March i. 
 
 . Sir Charles Russell's examination of witnesses was suspended on February 
 27th, immediately after Mr. Parnell made his statement, and because the next 
 three witnesses required, namely, Mr. Davitt, Mr. O'Kelly, and Mr. Campbell, 
 were absent. These gentlemen were all in their places to-day. Mr. Labouchere 
 was also in his accustomed corner. Mr. G. A. Sala came in shortly before 
 half-past ten o'clock, and sat down beside Mr. Davitt ; and on the same bench 
 sat Mr. Soames, Mr. IMacdonakl, Mr. Walter, jun,, Mr. Houston, and Mr. 
 Anderson, of Scotland Yard. Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. T. Healy, Mr. Biggar, 
 !Mr. Jacob Bright, visited the court at one time or another during the day. 
 Just after their lordships took their seats on the bench, Mr, Houston rose and 
 asked to be allowed to make a statement. Mr. Houston seemed to be troubled. 
 Told by the President that it was an inconvenient time for making statements, 
 .he sat down again. 
 
170 Friday] Diary of [Mar. i.. 
 
 Then Sir Charles Russell began to put in his witnesses. Mr. James O'Kelly,. 
 M.P., shortish, muscular, erect, resolute-looking, came first. From Hayti and 
 the States to Carlist Spain and the Soudan, wherever there has been hot 
 fighting and adventure, Mr. James O'Kelly has been in it. Handing him one 
 of the letters to M^hich his alleged signature was attached, and which was- 
 addressed to Egan, Sir Charles Russell asked if he knew anything about it> 
 Nothing. Mr. O'Kelly looked at the thing with an air of contempt, and 
 then walked out of his box. He had been in it only a few seconds. Then. 
 Mr. Campbell entered. As secretary' to Mr. Parnell and to Mr. Egan, Mr. 
 Campbell ought to know whether the signatures and " bodies " of the batch of 
 letters given him for his inspection were genuine. Only in two letters of the 
 number he was examining was the imitation even decently successful. Only two • 
 — what a bungler was Pigott. At this, that, and the other letter Mr. Campbell 
 shook his head — an abrupt, impatient little shake. Throwing down the last of 
 the impostures, Mr. Campbell made way for Mr. Michael Davitt. 
 
 There was a stir among the audience as JNIr. Davitt walked into the box. 
 For many reasons Mr. Davitt's personality has greatly impressed the lawyers- 
 and the laity who have seen and heard him in Probate Court No. I. People 
 noted the well-shaped head, the strongly-marked features — keen, dark eyes, 
 black, thickish eyebrows, nose prominent and well formed, resolute lines about 
 the mouth — and the mingled expression of kindliness and shrewdness. There 
 were frankness and honesty in the strong vibrating voice. Mr. Davitt's 
 evidence was over in a few seconds. He described how he copied one of the 
 forged letters attributed to him, in order to show Mr. Parnell how unlike the 
 writing of the forged letter was to his real handwriting. Pigott had spoken 
 of his interview with Mr. Justin IsIcCarthy ; and now IVIr. McCarthy declared, 
 " I never saw Mr. Pigott in all my life, to my knowledge." Next came Mr. 
 Lewis — ^^-ery neat, wholly imperturbable, quick in his replies. Once or twice, 
 though, he showed, in an uplifting of the brow, just a trace of boredom, whilst 
 he naiTated, once more, the story of his interview with Pigott. The details of 
 the first interview between Mr. Lewis and Mr. Pigott are pretty well known 
 already ; but now they were heard for the first time in court from INIr. Lewis 
 himself. " I will tell you who forged those letters," said 'Mr. Lewis to Pigott, 
 when they were alone. " You had in your possession a letter written by Mr. 
 Egan to you." "I had not," quoth Pigott. " You had," said Mr. Lewis, 
 " for I have your letters to Egan in my possession. You took sentences out of 
 Mr. Egan's letter, and you did the same to Mr. Parnell's." " Mr. Parnell's ! 
 why, I had no letters of INIr. Parnell's." says Pigott. "No! but you had 
 though; you had that letter of Mr. Parnell's, date 1 6th of June, 1 88 1, about 
 the sale of your paper. The Irishman ; and not only that, but you used two of 
 Mr. Parnell's letters of i6th of June, 1881, to produce your two forgeries of 
 l6th of June, 1882." Swift, wide-awake Mr. George Lewis : the very first 
 witnesses whom he subpoenaed were The Times's own Houston and The 
 Times s own Pigott ! This announcement caused considerable amusement 
 among Mr. Lewis's attentive audience. 
 
 Then came Mr. Labouchere. Mr. Labouchere leant his right elbow on the 
 ledge, and waited. He wore the air of a man to whom the Pigott epic was 
 now^ as a " mouthful of sand." " Tell us all about it," said Sir Charles, and Mr. 
 Labouchere, very slowly, and veiy realistically, described how Pigott told him 
 that The Times had offered him five thousand pounds ; how Pigott asked 
 whether he, Mr. Labouchere, would make an ofier ; how- Pigott asked whether 
 he would give a thousand pounds for the original Egan letters, upon which the 
 forgeries had been based ; how ]\Ir. Labouchere replied that he would buy 
 genuine goods of that sort " over the counter " from Pigott or anybody ; how 
 the suggestion of a thousand pounds was Pigott's, not INIr. Labouchere's ; how 
 when Pigott called upon him a second time and Pigott said, "You'll be 
 
Friday] ilic ParncU Connnission. [Mar. i. 171 
 
 surprised to see me," Mr. Labouchere replied that he was not surprised at any- 
 thing ; and how Mr. Labouchere could hardly tell Pigott how Pigott could 
 evade the witness-box, because, said Mr. Labouchere, "You have already 
 perjured yourself a good deal." ]\Ir. G. A. Sala, following Mr. Labouchere, 
 stood in the box for half a minute, to say that Mr. Labouchere had told 
 exactly what happened. — For Pigott's death see Notes. 
 
 INIr. Soames was then called by the Attorney-General to authenticate the 
 various statements made to him by Pigott. Mr. Soames did not like his 
 position, much. He was in a temper, though under the circumstances, he was 
 obliged to consume his own smoke. It is unnecessary to repeat the substance of 
 all the separate editions of Pigott's lies. The Attorney-General proposed the 
 reading of these statements, because, as he said, Pigott's story to Mr. 
 Labouchere having been heard, it was but fair that Pigott's story to Mr. 
 Soames should also be heard. The hearing occupied a long time ; and then 
 Sir Charles Russell put a series of merciless questions, in answer to which Mr. 
 Soames admitted that he did not know what position (besides that of Secretary 
 to the "I.L.P.U.") Houston held ; that he never even asked Houston ; that 
 he did not cross-examine Houston's statement to him about the way in which 
 he got at the letters ; that he never asked Pigott where the house was where 
 the black bag was found ; that he never asked Pigott about the names of 
 individuals. Then Houston himself rose up, and repeated his request to be 
 allowed to make a statement. All that Houston said was, that, as several 
 charges had been made against him, he was ready to present himself for cross- 
 examination and to give security for his appearance in court. " I think Mr. 
 Houston has put it very properly," was the President's remark. 
 
 Then Sir Charles Russell asked if their lordships would now, in accordance 
 with the powers conferred upon them by the seventh section of the Commission 
 Act, make a special report regarding the question as to the authenticity of the 
 letters. The Attorney-General objected that, as Sir Charles Russell had 
 spoken of a "foul conspiracy" behind Houston and Pigott, their lordships 
 should postpone their report until they had heard the whole of the evidence. 
 Upon this Sir James Hannen replied that he would consider the application 
 for the report " between this and Tuesday." 
 
 Before the half-past one adjournment, ihe end of the present stage of the 
 forged letters section of the trial was reached. And then Sir Richard Webster 
 took up the thread of his American evidence — the thread that had been 
 dropped when "the letters" came on. It was like returning to ancient histor}'. 
 And no sooner did the Attorney-General sound his first notes of the old organ- 
 grind of extract-reading than a crowd of people made for the door. The 
 extracts were from The Irish World; and the purpose of the extract-reading 
 was to identify the policy of the League with the dynamite policy of the 
 American journal. After the Attorney-General had read for some time. Sir 
 Heniy James tried his hand at the bellows. The Q.C.'s and the juniors 
 laughed and whispered, and some of them amused themselves with drawing 
 comic sketches. A comic sketch by Mr. Lockwood, going the round of the 
 benches, created some merriment. Sir Charles Russell contended, and sub- 
 sequently Mr. Reid, that the Land League funds came not from The Irish 
 World, but through The Irish World ; that it was absurd to say that the 
 leaguers, merely because they accepted the help of The Irish World in a 
 certain limited form, must be held responsible for all the "ridiculous stuff," 
 all the "maniacal" (Sir Charles Russell's adjective) rubbish which Mr. Ford 
 chose to print in it. Was Mr. Parnell, Sir Charles asked, to refuse contribu- 
 tions of money sent from all parts of America, through the " conduit pipe " of 
 The Irish World, merely because he disapproved of inflammatory stuff pub- 
 lished in the paper. There is no point whatever in these extracts of yours. 
 Sir Charles argued, "unless you can show that The Irish World was the 
 
172 Tuesday] Diary of [Mar. 5. 
 
 adopted organ of the Land League. No proof short of that will serve your 
 purpose." 
 
 FIFTY-NINTH DAY.* 
 
 March 5. 
 
 AVhen the Court rose on Friday, the 1st of March, Sir Charles Russell, and 
 ■after him Mr. Reid, argued that unless it could be proved that T/^e Irish 
 Wo7-ld was the organ of the Land League, the Attorney-General's reading of 
 extracts was a mere waste of time. Sir James Hannen now decided to 
 reject what appeared to be one of the Attorney-General's positions, namely, 
 that the fact of the receipt of money contributions through the medium 
 of The Irish /^^r/^ implied a unity of policy between that journal and the 
 League. Against this position Sir Charles Russell protested most strenuously 
 on the Friday afternoon. The Irish League, he said, did not get money 
 "from" The Irish World, but only " through" The Irish World. The New 
 York paper was simply the conduit pipe. The President now endorsed this 
 view. " We think," he said, " that the mere receipt of money does not affect 
 the recipients so as to make them responsible for articles appearing in that 
 paper." The President w^ent on, however, to remark that the receipt of con- 
 tributions might possibly be an important link in a chain of evidence. But 
 still, as the mere fact of the receipt only had been put in evidence, his lordship 
 -adhered to the opinion that it did not impose upon the Land League any 
 responsibility for, or acceptance of, the politics and the opinions of The Irish 
 World. 
 
 Still, Sir James Hannen ruled that The Irish World was admissible in 
 evidence, and on the following grounds — one -of the charges against the Irish 
 Members and others was that they had disseminated newspapers inciting to 
 outrage. And many constable witnesses had already given evidence to the 
 effect that they had seized large numbers of The Irish World in various parts 
 of Ireland. Moreover, a League official, named Farragher, had said in court 
 that packets of The Irish World were received at and sent from the League 
 office, and at the expense of the League. And the Secretary of the Ladies 
 League received and distributed the paper after the suppression of the Land 
 League. The time covered by the distribution of the paper extended, said 
 Sir James Hannen, from May, 1880, to about October, 1881. The Irish 
 World of that period would, therefore, said Sir James Hannen, be admitted. 
 But, he added, " it remains to be seen whether The Irish World during that 
 period answers to the description " of a newspaper disseminating outrage. Of 
 course the appearance of "any isolated letter" w^ould not suffice to establish 
 the charge. 
 
 Then Mr. Atkinson began the reading. He read extracts from one of The 
 Irish World'' s leading articles, which discussed the use of dynamite in Ireland's 
 political battles. He read extracts from letters of Mr. Davitt, and speeches of 
 Mr. Davitt and Mr. John Dillon. He read out a passage in which Mr. Davitt 
 was made to say that The Irish World was "doing noble work" ; that Irish- 
 men were bound to pay deference to the views of a paper like The Irish World ; 
 and that, as the "sinews of war" came through The Irish World, the people 
 who supplied them were entitled to tell Irishmen that they ought to adopt this, 
 that, or the other plank for their political platform. Then Mr. Atkinson tried 
 
 * On Saturday the 2nd, the news of Pigctt's suicide in ^Madrid reached London. For 
 ■ details see Notes. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Mar. 5, 173, 
 
 Mr. Dillon's speeches. He quoted an American address of Mr. Dillon's, in 
 which the speaker advocated the breaking up of the Irish Constabulary force, 
 which for thirty years had backed up Irish landlordism. In one of the extracts 
 read by Mr. Atkinson Mr. Davitt was alleged to have said that the New \ox^ 
 Irish Worid ought to be distributed in Ireland. 
 
 After Mr. Atkinson had proceeded for some time with his reading, Sir 
 Charles Russell rose to suggest that The Times counsel should mark the 
 passages they intended to read, then hand them in, give time to counsel for 
 the opposite side to consider the extracts till next morning, and meanwhile call 
 witnesses for a difterent part of the case. The Attorney-General would gladly 
 accede to this suggestion, but for the fact that the arrangements already made 
 for calling witnesses were made on the assumption that the reading of The 
 Irish World extracts should be gone on with. The President suggested that 
 Sir Charles Russell should take note of the extracts read now, and read his own 
 extracts next day. Sir Charles Russell and ]Mr. Reid thought that this plan 
 would not save any time — as "all the ground would have to be gone over 
 again," whereupon Sir James Hannen rephed that in his "despair" he had no 
 other plan to propose. So Mr. Atkinson returned to his extracts. While Mr. 
 Atkinson read, counsel on the other side perused, in a leisurely way, the files. 
 of the American paper, stopping now and then to take stock of its bold, if not 
 too artistic illustrations. 
 
 The object of these extracts from The Irish World was to prove that the 
 leading leaguers were knowingly and deliberately in association with men of 
 the very worst stamp. Suspending, for a space, the reading of The World 
 extracts, Sir Richard Webster attempted to prove the same thing from refe- 
 rences to his speech in the trial of O'Donnell v. Walter. He reminded the 
 Court that the informer Carey had declared, first, that Thomas Brennan had 
 filled in the Fenian Brotherhood the same office which he filled in the Land 
 League — the office of secretary ; secondly, that Walsh went over to Ireland 
 from England in November, i88i, to found the party of assassination (the 
 Invincibles) ; thirdly, that the Phoenix Park murders and the assaults on Judge 
 Lawson and Mr. Field were its work ; fourthly, that W' alsh introduced him 
 (Carey) to Sheridan, who was at one and the same time a " Constitutional " 
 organizer under the Land League and an Invincible official ; and, fifthly, that 
 a woman whom he believed to be the wife of Frank Bryne (secretary of the 
 League in Great Britain) had brought from London to Dublin the knives with 
 which the Phoenix Park murders were perpetrated. After the Attorney-General 
 ended this part of his reading, Mr. Atkinson produced extracts from the United 
 Ireland report of Carey's trial. 
 
 The Attorney-General next turned his attention to the doings of the Land 
 League in particular — the Land League being, in his view, only the public or 
 open section of an organization of which the Invincibles formed the secret 
 police. " Are you ready, Mr. Ronan ? " Sir Richard asked. But Mr. Ronan 
 was not ready. His fingers went fluttering among heaps of papers in search 
 of the rules of the Land League. " Perhaps you might find them downstairs," 
 suggested Mr. Attorney, with his air of inexhaustible patience. So Mr. Ronan 
 disappeared "downstairs." And not to waste time Sir Richard thought he 
 would meanwhile read out some of Mr. Gladstone's speeches in the House 
 of Commons. So he produced his Hansard. A groan from the other side. 
 But while Sir Richard read, in rushed Mr. Ronan from downstairs with the 
 rules. Then Sir Richard dropped Hansard, and Mr. Ronan read the rules 
 of the Land League organization. And when that was finished Sir Richard 
 quietly resumed his Hansard, and the dismal grind went on — in spite of Sir- 
 Charles Russell's plaintive protest against this resurrection of Parliamentary 
 debates. Sir Richard Webster replied that Mr. Gladstone's statements were 
 made in the presence of such members as Mr. Parnell, Mr. Healy, Mr. Biggar,and 
 
174 Wednesday] Diary of [Mar. 6. 
 
 Mr. Dillon in the House of Commons. In reading his Parliamentary extracts, 
 the Attorney-General even quoted the " Oh-ohs." When the Attorney-General 
 got done with Mr. Gladstone, Sir Henry James took up the running. Sir 
 Henry quoted a speech in which Mr. P'orster alleged that Mr. Parnell did not 
 take steps to stop crime. Sir Henry read with railway speed. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood then] came with his modifying extracts. He showed that 
 Mr. Parnell, in the House of Commons, had contended that the statements 
 attributed to him were as harmless as any speeches made by Mr. Gladstone 
 himself. Then Sir Richard produced fresh extracts to show that definite . 
 : allegations were made in the House of Commons against specified Irish 
 members by the Ministry of the day. Having done with Mr. Gladstone and 
 Mr. Forster's speeches against the leaguers. Sir Richard quoted Sir William 
 Harcourt's. " I must ask you," interposed the President, " to restrict yourself 
 to statements of fact, and to spare us the oratory," Thus admonished, Sir 
 Richard Webster confined himself to choice selections from Sir William's 
 • oratory — selections in which Sir William denounced in the very strongest 
 terms the League and all its works — real or supposed. Long before four 
 •o'clock, the court was gradually emptying itself. The " public " — what there 
 ■was of it — was getting bored with all this ancient history. Even the calling of 
 half-a-dozen witnesses failed to arrest its attention... Not one of these witnesses 
 was cross-examined. "We won't cross-examine," was the short, abrupt, im- 
 patient remark, which came from defending counsel, every time Mr. Murphy, 
 or some one of his colleagues, finished their examination of a witness. The 
 only noteworthy witness among the six was Sergeant Gallagher, of the Royal 
 Irish Constabulary, who had been employed to keep an eye on Pigott when 
 Pigott was living in Anderton's Hotel. He testified to his discovery of a 
 number of cases of arms sent from London to different places in Ireland in 
 J 88 1, by Thomas Walsh. 
 
 SIXTIETH DAY. 
 
 March 6. 
 
 Court half empty. ]Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., resumed his readings from Patrick 
 Pord's paper, TAe Iris/i World. Most of the reading, which occupied the 
 ■first half of the day's sitting, was done by Mr. Atkinson on The Times side, 
 and Mr. Asquith, on the side of the accused — that is to say, Mr. Asquith 
 quoted the passages which were alleged to modify, or explain away, the strong 
 extracts read by his opponent. It was a dull performance, this three hours' 
 exchange of quotational broadsides. Before the exchange began Sir Charles 
 Russell remarked to their lordships that, having looked through T/ie Irish 
 World files, he found there were "some wild letters," but no advocacy of 
 crime ; whereupon Sir Richard Webster retorted, blandly, that that was Sir 
 Charles Russell's opinion. And then Mr. Atkinson began to reel off his 
 extracts. He quoted an Irish World passage in which Mr. Davitt was alleged 
 to have said, in an American speech of his, that " the hands which now dis- 
 pense charity will, if necessary, dispense blows to the people of Ireland." The 
 •dispensers of charity were the subscribers to the funds transmitted to Ireland 
 through The Irish World. Mr. Atkinson gave extracts from the files of August 
 and September, 1880, from which it would appear that some of the money of 
 the Skirmishing Fund was used for League purposes in Ireland. 
 
 Then Mr. Asquith interposed with his explanatory passages. From his file 
 of The Irish World he quoted passages to show how Mr. Davitt had been 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Comuiission. [Mar. 6. 175 
 
 •condemning violence. Thus, in one of Mr. Davitt's speeches in America, Mr. 
 Davitt was reported to have asked his audience how the Irish landlords could 
 be abolished. " Shoot them," some one exclaimed. "No," was Mr. Davitt's 
 comment, "let us shoot the system," for shooting Irish landlords would only bring 
 upon Ireland the condemnation of America and the world. Then Mr. Atkin- 
 son proceeded to read a string of extracts from a wild letter writer in The Irish 
 IVorld, who signed himself "Transatlantic." "Transatlantic" in his pious 
 moods spoke of Ireland as "God's holy isle," and in his wicked moods of the 
 chance which another Sepoy revolt might give Irish patriots of blowing up the 
 Empire of John Bull. Assassination paragraphs were also produced, against 
 which Sir Charles Russell placed paragraphs from speeches by Mr. Egan, and 
 by Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, and other Irish members in America. One of 
 the Egan passages, in reference to the Phoenix Park crime, ran thus: "We 
 • are horrified at the crime. We condemn and deplore it in the strongest 
 manner." Again, it appeared from another extract that an American inter- 
 viewer had described Mr. Parnell as " seeming very depressed," and as declaring 
 that he considered the Phoenix Park murders to be "the most abominable, 
 atrocious, and wanton crime that ever disgraced the annals of Ireland.'' Just 
 before the luncheon interval, some amusement was caused in court by a pen- 
 and-ink caricature, the work of Mr. Lockwood, Q.C. It was a sketch of a 
 small boy jNIike, who in the witness-box on the previous day said that he had 
 been boycotted by other small boys, and concerning whom Mr. Lockwood 
 uttered his barely audible remonstrance, " Let the poor boy go." " Ronan 
 sees Mikey safely home " was the inscription on the sketch. Air. Ronan in his 
 wig, with his gown tucked up and his trousers rolled to his ankles, was trund- 
 ling Mikey home in a perambulator ! 
 
 Almost the whole of the afternoon sitting was occupied with the examination 
 •of ten witnesses called by the Attorney-General for the purpose of supple- 
 menting former evidence concerning outrages. Police-constable Ough stepped 
 into the box merely to say that it was he who arrested the Thomas Walsh 
 mentioned in the previous day's evidence. Then a porter at Castlereagh 
 Station, Ireland, testified to the seizure, by the Irish police, of a case of 
 weapons supposed to have been forwarded by Walsh from London. The third 
 witness, also a constable, testified to the seizure of a case at Tubercurry, co. 
 Tipperary. Then came Detective-Inspector Peel, of the London Metropolitan 
 force, who said that having searched Walsh's premises after the arrest, he found 
 there 277 rifles, 276 bayonets, 30 revolvers, and 9,000 rounds of ammunition. 
 Then Mr. Loftus, a Tipperary farmer, related how a " Father Murphy " called 
 upon him one day; how the Father turned out to be Sheridan in disguise; 
 how he failed, at first, to recognize Sheridan; but how the dog identified him at 
 •once — a dog of which Sheridan had, once upon a time, made him a present. 
 
 Did he give you a dog ? — that was one of the first questions put to the 
 witness by the Attorney-General. Did he give you a dog? — the question 
 amused Sir Richard's hearers. It reminded them of a stock question of Mr. 
 Murphy's during the slow weeks of the outrage evidence : On the night of 
 such and such a date, a great many years ago, "were you in bed?" Asa 
 rule, the witnesses looked somewhat foolish when they replied, on their oath, 
 that they were in bed. So Mr. Loftus looked a little foolish when he admitted 
 that Sheridan did give him a dog. Mr. Loftus described how the supposed 
 priest asked him whether he was a member of the Fenian Brotherhood, to 
 which Mr. Loftus replied that he was. Mr. Loftus was not sure whether 
 Sheridan himself was a brother, but he said that, according to Sheridan's own 
 account, Sheridan was a League organizer. And there was another man, an 
 associate or acquaintance of Sheridan's named Fitzpatrick, whom ]\Ir. Loftus 
 liad seen at League gatherings, and whom he supposed to be, like Sheridan, a 
 X,eague organizer. He also believed that Fitzpatrick, who was, or pretended 
 
176 JVcducsday] Diary of [Mar. 6^ 
 
 to be, a commercial traveller, was a Fenian brother. But when Mr. Loftus 
 came to be cross-examined by Sir Charles Russell he admitted that on the 
 occasion of Sheridan's visit in disguise Sheridan said nothing about the organi- 
 zation of the Land League ; that, in fact, Sheridan told him he had come to- 
 see about some disputed property. " As far as you know," asked Sir Charles, 
 "had he anything to do at that time with the Land League?" " Not so far 
 as I know," was the reply. "Now, to your knowledge was Fitzpatrick a 
 member of the League?" "Never." "Was he to your knowledge an 
 opponent of the Land League?" " Very much so. " " And still is ? " "Yes." 
 Sir Charles Russell next asked whether the jury before which Fitzpatrick was 
 tried on a conspiracy to murder, acquitted Fitzpatrick partly on the ground 
 of the untrustworthiness of Delaney, who informed against him. Sir James 
 Hannen remarking that the opinion of the Irish jury was not a matter for the 
 consideration of the Court, Sir Charles Russell replied warmly that "he must 
 insist on making an observation, for the purpose of showing the true character- 
 of Delaney." 
 
 The next witness, Sergeant Caulfield, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, said' 
 that he knew Sheridan and Fitzpatrick at Tubercurry, in 1880, and that at a 
 blacksmith's forge there, at which Sheridan and others used to assemble, he 
 unearthed, in April, 1880, a box containing ten rifles, ten bayonets, and a 
 quantity of ammunition. As Mr. Caulfield pronounced ten in a way very 
 common in Ireland — "tin" — his cross-examiner was puzzled about the "tin 
 rifles." It was explained that "tin" meant a numeral, not one of the metals. 
 
 Then came another little mystery — the mystery of ]\Ir. William Redmond,. 
 M.P. Mr. John Webb described how, as a constabulary officer, he had in 
 Januarjs 1882, shadowed somewhere in Kerry a person w^ho went under the 
 name of Mondred ; how Mr. Mondred always drove out at night, with the 
 hotel-keeper's son to show him the way ; and how in the mornings he used to- 
 find copies of the No Rent manifesto dropped on the way over which Mr. 
 Mondred had driven. At last he arrested this midnight distributor of mani-- 
 festoes, and lo ! Mr. Mondred turned out to be Mr. Redmond. Then he 
 searched ]Mr. Redmond's luggage at the hotel, and in the luggage he found 
 more copies of the No Rent manifesto and copies of United Ireland (thea 
 published in Paris), as also a pocketbook full of documents, which pocketbook 
 he forwarded, documents and all, to the Castle. Mr. Webb said that he had 
 lately searched for the note-book in Dublin Castle ; but that he failed to find 
 it. 
 
 Another informer and spy from America. This was a man named Coleman,, 
 who said he became a Fenian in 1866, and that some years subsequently, he 
 was sworn a member of the reformed body, known as the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood, by a person named JNIacaulay, who was an associate of Scrab- 
 Nally's, and whom he had seen in conversation with Mr. Parnell ; and who 
 gave him (Coleman) intimation of outrages about to be perpetrated by leaguers. 
 " This information," said Coleman, "I took care to convey at once to the police."' 
 Sir Charles Russell having objected to hearsay evidence of this sort, and having^- 
 remarked that Macaulay's membership of the League was not asserted, the 
 Attorney-General replied that he was prepared to show that Macaulay was aL 
 leaguer. Our case is, said the Attorney-General, that the leaguers did plart. 
 outrages, and that ]\Iacaulay carried out their behests. 
 
Thursday} the Parnell Commission. [Mar. 7. 177 
 
 SIXTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 March 7. 
 
 The judges having decided that the informer Cohiian's testimony was 
 admissible, Cohiian entered the witness-box. Cohiian is a shortish, thick- 
 set man, with a sort of distorted resemblance to Mr. Thomas Sexton, Lord 
 Mayor of Dublin, of all men in the world. The resemblance rather amused 
 some people in the court. Colman is a " dour "-looking person — as the 
 Scotch would say. He is dull, heav-y, stolid, obstinate, and his voice is 
 wooden. The purpose of the Attorney-General's examination was to establish, 
 through Macaulay, the responsibility of the Land League for a series of crimes 
 accomplished or attempted, in which Macaulay was the prime mover. 
 Macaulay, according to the Attorney-General, was a Land Leaguer ; he 
 planned his crimes in association with Leaguers against land-grabbers and 
 others ; he and they were, to use Sir Richard's expression, " The police of the 
 League." 
 
 There was the plot to murder a man named Wills ; "And," said Colman, "I 
 was told by Macaulay himself that he gave two revolvers to a man named Burke — 
 a Land Leaguer and Fenian Centre — for effecting the murder." Colman was 
 only told about it, he had not seen the transfer. Wills, however, was not shot, 
 for Colman, by his own account, had sent warning to the police. Then there 
 was a plot to murder George Scott, a cess-collector. "Macaulay told me about 
 it himself," said the witness ; "he came driving up to my door in a trap one 
 night with another man named Daly, and he asked me to join them both ; I 
 promised to meet them next Thursday, and bring my double-barrelled gun for 
 my own use, and two revolvers for them." Colman's house was a sort of 
 arsenal for the fitting out of murderous expeditions^the gun belonged to his 
 master, whose gamekeeper Colman was, and he had three revolvers which 
 were the property of ^Macaulay. Happily, nothing came of this plot. George 
 Scott, hke Wills, was not shot. Daly, said Colman, was a leaguer ; and 
 George Scott had taken an evicted farm, and Colman himself, the associate of 
 the would-be murderers, took care to warn the pohce in good time. 
 
 George had a brother James, who also was to be shot. In fact, the money 
 was ready for payment of the murderers, £2^ in all — namely, ;z^io from the 
 Ladies' Land League, ^10 from the Fenian Organization, and ^^5 from as 
 many tenants of the neighbourhood, three at least of whom Colman asserted 
 to be leaguers. It was a clear case, according to Colman, of murderous 
 association between the League and the Fenians. However, nothing came 
 of it. There was no shooting ; and James escaped like the rest. 
 
 Never mind ; let us shoot Richard Leonard, who has fallen out with one of 
 our confederates. And so there is formed an elaborate plot for the murder of 
 Leonard, of which Colman gives a very detailed account. But Leonard 
 escapes like all the others. " On the night on which the murders were ar- 
 ranged," says Colman in the box, " I sent the news to the police." 
 
 Then there was ISlr. Ruane, who became "unpopular" because he refused 
 to join either the League or the Fenian Society. And so it was agreed to 
 shoot him. But the witness in the box told the police what was coming, and 
 Ruane was safe. Knox was another person, who was doomed merely on 
 Macaulay 's suggestion made in a public-house — " Why don't you shoot him ? " 
 But as Colman overheard this bloodthirsty suggestion, Colman was enabled 
 to warn the police, and Knox remained unharmed. One was impressed by 
 the dulness and the inconsequence, more than by the villainy, of this tissue of 
 stories, as they were told by the witness, in his wooden, ponderous manner, 
 with his arms stretched out, and his big hands sprawhng over the ledge of the 
 
 IS 
 
178 Thursday] Diary of [Mar, 7. 
 
 witness-box. To all appearance Colman would not have shown the smallest 
 emotion, even if it had been his. duty to relate that ISIacaulay and his associates 
 had proscribed, not a poor dozen or so merely, but the whole country side. 
 Colman's examination-in-chief concluded with an account of his acquaintance- 
 ship with P. W. Nally (Scrab's brother). He was introduced to Nally by 
 Macaulay as the latter's confidential friend ; and a meeting at which Nally and 
 Macaulay and Colman were to be present was put off, because the place was 
 swarming with detectives ; and Macaulay told him how Nally received three 
 hundred pounds for the murder of Mr. Burke, the land agent, and how Nally, 
 having given his confederates twenty-five pounds each, kept the lion's share for 
 himself — " a mean thing that I would not have done," as Macaulay remarked. 
 Was it League money? Colman could not tell; all he could remember was 
 that Macaulay had said something or other about League connection with the 
 three hundred pounds. Such was the sum and substance of the informer's 
 story, as told in his examination-in-chief. 
 
 The cross-examination by Sir Charles Russell was one of his severest. 
 Colman betrayed the profoundest ignorance about the League branches in his 
 part of Mayo, not knowing who the presidents were, nor the vice-presidents, 
 nor the treasurers, nor the secretaries. And yet two of the branches named 
 were in his immediate neighbourhood. " I had my own business to attend to " 
 was his explanation of his ignorance. Sir Charles Russell asked him about his 
 remuneration for his services as a witness. Colman promptly replied that he 
 had quite enough money of his own. " If I get any," said he, " I shall take 
 it ; if I don't I can go without." "Do you expect any, sir?" exclaimed Sir 
 Charles, in a sharp, loud tone. "Well, I suppose I do," replied Colman, 
 this time rather submissively ; but he declined to throw light on the next 
 question : " Have you formed any idea in your own mind as to how much you 
 are worth?" When asked how he came by his money, he replied " Work." 
 When asked what work, he replied " I won't tell you." " What sort of work, 
 sir?" repeated Sir Charles, sternly; "did you get any money from the Govern- 
 ment for your information?" "Yes." "How much?" again very sharply. 
 *'A thousand pounds." Then he said that he had ten pounds a month for 
 working on the Canadian Pacific Railway — doing whatever work the " boss " 
 gave him. The thousand pounds he took with him to America. It was this 
 money which enabled him to leave the country after he had given his evidence 
 at the Cork trials of Macaulay and persons already named on the charge of 
 conspiracy to murder. Sir Charles now reminded Colman that at these Cork 
 trials he had identified certain letters written by Macaulay and Nally. 
 
 " In the face of these letters," exclaimed Sir Charles, " is it not the fact that 
 so far from Nally and ^Macaulay having been supporters of the Land League, 
 they were its enemies?" But Colman declared he believed they were not in 
 opposition to it. Sir Charles Russell was proceeding with his reading of other 
 letters, in which Macaulay and Nally expressed their opposition to the League, 
 when the Attorney-General suddenly interposed with a request to be allowed to 
 see Sir Charles's documents. "Seeing the way that zoe have been treated," 
 retorted Sir Charles, " a more audacious request I have never heard made in a 
 court of justice." "But I," said the President mildly, "am entitled to see 
 the brief you have in your hand." "And if your lordships /^iz^/ seen all the 
 brief," returned Sir Charles, "I think the witness would never have been 
 called." " I don't think you have a right to say that," interposed Mr. Justice 
 Smith. "Well," said Sir Charles, " if the witness was called I should be 
 greatly disappointed." " I don't agree with your observation," was Mr. Justice 
 Smith's rejoinder ; and the little " tiff" ended. Returning to his question, Sir 
 Charles asked witness whether he still persisted, in spite of the evidence of the 
 Macaulay and Nally letters, in saying that these men were leaguers. Colman 
 replied that he did, and that Macaulay himself had told him that the leaguers 
 
Thursday] the Pavncll Commission. {Mar. 7. 179 
 
 nand Fenians were under "one cloak." Coming again to the money question, 
 Colman said that he had ;^500 of his money still left — that is to say, in the 
 form of some real property which he bought in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He also 
 said that in America he went under a false name ; but, in consideration for the 
 man's feelings on this point, Sir Charles refrained from asking him what his 
 assumed name was. 
 
 Then INIr. Davitt investigated Colman's past history. Had Colman been 
 charged with theft, with illicit manufacture of spirits, with firing shots into a 
 farmer's house ? No ; but he had been fined for having illicit whisky in his 
 possession. " Did you ruin the character of a girl named Carsons ? " asked Mr. 
 Davitt. "There was some talk about it," replied Colman, in his heavy, 
 wooden way. And the very next instant he admitted that this girl lived with 
 him, and that his wife went away " of her own accord " to America " because 
 of something that happened between us." The next stage in the cross- 
 examination of Colman was the production of some of the letters which he had 
 sent to the police, giving them information about "Fenian" and " League" 
 plots. There was very little in them ; but a remark in one of them was 
 received in court with a burst of laughter. It was in the nature of a P. S, — 
 " Don't be severe in my potheen case." This request was made in a letter 
 , giving intimation of the Wills plot, named in an earlier part of this article. 
 
 Francis Connor, of the Irish Constabulary, next entering the witness-box, 
 .said that both Macaulay and Nally had stated to a newspaper reporter who 
 interviewed them at Dublin that they were members of the Land League. 
 But when cross-examined by Mr. Reid he stated that he did not know who 
 the reporter was, nor what newspaper he came from. Connor had known 
 -Macaulay for seven years — during which he served in Macaulay 's locality — and 
 yet he admitted that the first time he heard of Macaulay being a leaguer was 
 at the meeting with the unknown reporter in Dublin. 
 
 At this stage the solicitor to The Times was called, to say what he knew of 
 Colman. He smiled, as he ascended the witness-box. Mr. Soames first heard 
 ■of Colman from Constable Preston, shortly before Christmas ; and it was only 
 .seven days ago that Colman's statements were taken down. Mr. Preston told 
 Mr. Soames that Colman was willing to come over from America at his own 
 expense. But the most interesting part of Mr. Soames's evidence was given in 
 reply to Mr. Lockwood's cross-examination. Mr. Lockwood wanted to know 
 whether Mr. Soames had on behalf of The Times employed Thomas Walsh to 
 collect evidence in Ireland. [This is the ex-convict who has been occasionally 
 mentioned during the last few days, as a secret exporter of arms from London 
 to Ireland.] And now, in answer to Mr. Lockwood, Mr. Soames admitted 
 that he had paid from thirty to thirty-five pounds " indirectly" — that is, through 
 a solicitor — to this same convict Walsh for travelling expenses. Where was 
 Walsh now? INIr. Soames could not tell. He has been " spirited away," said 
 Mr. Soames. But what had Walsh gone to Ireland for ? To search for some 
 documents that would compromise Mr. Parnell. 
 
 At this sudden allusion to more letters, which might damn Mr. Parnell and 
 his cause, there was a low murmur of laughter throughout the court. "Did 
 Walsh ask you for a thousand pounds?" Mr. Lockwood asked. " No," said 
 Mr. Soames ; "but he told me he had documents which would show that Mr, 
 Parnell and Mr. O'Kelly were mixed up in the importationof arms into Ireland, 
 and Walsh also showed me a letter signed by Mr. Parnell." "You mean 
 purporting to be signed," Mr. Lockwood exclaimed in an ironical tone. But 
 Mr. Soames was indifferent ; he did not mean "purporting," he meant " signed 
 by Mr. Parnell." And what Walsh said to Mr. Soames was that he would go 
 to Ireland and get some more of these compromising documents, "and he 
 -said that if he procured these documents I was to satisfy myself whether they 
 ^Avere genuine or not, after which I could arrange about terms.'' "Did he 
 
i8o Tuesday] Diary of [Mar. 12.. 
 
 mention any sum?" "Yes, he mentioned five hundred pounds, but no 
 bargain was entered into;" and then, in reply to another question of Mr. 
 Lockvvood's, Mr. Soames added, " Walsh told me it was Mr. ParncU's letter 
 which he showed me." Then Mr. Lockwood paused. He looked hard at 
 Mr. Soames, he bent forward, and, raising his hand and shaking it slowly, he 
 put to Mr. Soames the following question : — " Do you recollect, Mr. Soames, 
 that you, in this inquir)', have sworn to the signatures which were upon letters 
 which are now withdrawn?" With that question ]\Ir. Lockwood abruptly 
 resumed his seat ; but Mr. Soames followed up that parting shot with the reply 
 that he had "spoken to the best of his belief, and that he had nothing 
 to retract." 
 
 SIXTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 March 12. 
 
 At the last sitting of the Court, it was denied, on the part of the defence, that 
 Macaulay ever was a member of the League. INIr. Reid now produced a file- 
 of T/ie /•reeniat2''s Jotinial, from which he read the following sentence : " In 
 reply to a question whether he (Macaulay) was president or secretary of any 
 Land League branch in Mayo, he replied that he was not a member of the Land 
 League at all." There was one other preliminary matter of importance, — Mr- 
 rarnell's banking accounts, concerning which, evidence was given by IVIr. 
 Hardcastle, a member of a well-known firm of accountants. He stated that 
 he had examined the Hibernian Bank accounts, but that except in a few cases 
 there was no indication of j^ersons from whom money was received or to whom 
 it was paid, for the practice of the bank was merely to retain the numbers oF 
 cheques paid. The accounts showed at least one thing — that the League's 
 appeal for public support was liberally responded to. The Land League 
 receipts from November i6, 1879, to September 7, 1882, were ^^261,269, and 
 the payments ^^261, 276, showing an overdraft of a little over six pounds^ 
 In cross-examination by Mr. Reid, Mr. Hardcastle said that the National 
 League had produced everything he had asked for. 
 
 And now came the lively part of the day — the evidence of ISIr. Timothy 
 Coffey ! Mr. Coffey, of Limerick, bustling after the usher, entered the witness- 
 box. He wore a heavy, reddish-grey Inverness cape, and yellow gloves. He 
 kissed the Testament with his gloves on. But after a question or two, he threw 
 off his heavy cape and put himself into an attitude, as if he meant business. The 
 tone of his reply to one of the first questions put to him, even more than the 
 manner of it, arrested attention, and it was seen that ISIr. Coffey, reporter for 
 The Leinster Herald, The Cork Herald, and other newspapers, was about to 
 follow in the footsteps of Pigott and Molloy, by turning against the side for 
 Avhich he appeared as a witness. " Had he ever joined the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood ? " Sir Heniy James asked him. " Never," was the answer, given 
 not merely with emphasis, but also with defiance. But he admitted that he 
 had joined the Land League shortly after it was founded ; and he made a 
 rambling explanation — unasked for — to the effect that he joined it because it 
 was a " constitutional " body. But was he a member of the committee of his 
 branch of the League, or only an ordinary member? To this simple question 
 Mr. Coffey would not give a direct answer ; and so Mr. Coffey fell out with Sir 
 Henr}^ James, after the examination-in-chief was but barely begun. Turning 
 suddenly round to the Bench, Coffey, with an air of cool impudence, suggested 
 that he might be allowed to state to their lordships his own case in his own 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [Mar. 12. 18 £ 
 
 •way, bcicause, said Mr. Cofifey, " I see the learned gentleman is in a difficulty." 
 5ir Henry James took all this in good part, remarking that he, too, must b^ 
 allowed " some share in the transaction." At last, after a good deal of wrang- 
 ling, Coffey said that he was only an ordinary member of the Land League. 
 
 "You have made a written statement?" asked Sir Henry James. "Yes," 
 lie had; "but," added CoiTey, "a statement is one thing, and evidence 
 another." " Well, is this statement true ? " Sir Henry continued, referring to 
 the statement which the witness made to ^Ir. Soames in December last. 
 ■"Untrue, positively untrue," exclaimed Coffey, smiling, and leaning half-way 
 .across the ledge of the witness-box, "every word of it is untrue." The audience 
 -laughed at this downright declaration. Sir James Hannen frowned. " I a.n 
 surprised," his lordship began — and then, " surprised that people should laugh 
 •when a person in your position makes such a confession." Nothing abashei, 
 Coffey retorted that if his lordship had lived in Ireland he would have under- 
 stood it well enough. In plain language, Coffey's statement, made in the first 
 place to Mr. Shannon, the Irish solicitor who assists Mr. Soames, was, according 
 to the witness's confession now made in the box, a tissue of lies from beginning 
 io end. " It was not I that volunteered the statement to Mr. Shannon," said 
 the witness, " it was he who came fishing to me." " If you will read it through, 
 you will see it's sensational," said the witness, leaning forward, and nodduig 
 (Confidentially at The Times counsel. The absurdity of the situation was too 
 much for the gravity of Mr. Coffey's audience, lawyers and all, whom only Sir 
 James Hannen's stern aspect prevented from breaking out into a roar of 
 laughter. And as ^Ir. Shannon "came fishing" to Coffey, so Coffey, according 
 Jo his present story, fooled Mr. Shannon to the top of his bent, dictated his 
 jstatement to ^Ir. Shannon, and then signed it. " He told me," said Coffey, 
 ■"that I should be handsomely remunerated, and that I should get a fine position." 
 •^'My whole confession," said Coffey, putting it as pithily as possible, " was the 
 effusion of a fertile imagination." And Mr. Coffey smiled, pulled down his 
 waistcoat, and twisted his moustache, in the outburst of laughter which followed. 
 -Sir Henry James cross-examining his own witness was a spectacle which 
 .amused ^Ir. Coffey as much as any one present. 
 
 The object of Sir Henry James's cross-examination was to elicit admissions 
 from Coffey which would show that his story, as given to the constable who 
 iirst interviewed him, to ]Mr. Shannon next, and Mr. Soames last of all, was 
 not the imaginative " eftiision " which the witness now alleged it to be. But 
 Coftey stuck to his new story, coolly alleging that in order to make his original 
 -story more plausible, he " purposely incriminated " two Irish members of 
 Parliament — Messrs.. Abraham and Finucane — as persons who actively assisted 
 at a Limerick Land League meeting at which were delivered speeches that led 
 .to the perpetration of two murders. But had not Coffey given information to 
 rthe police? "I have never giv^en what you call information to the police." 
 ■" No information to Constable Chalk ? " Never. " No communication with 
 diim ? " " Oh yes ; but not one of my communications contained a particle of 
 •truth." Then he said that all his communications with the police were made 
 -in July and August, 1SS2 ; and that certain direct statements which he sent to 
 -Dublin Castle (at the recommendation of the police) were all lies — all "fabrica- 
 tions suitable to the market." The merriment to which this unembarrassed 
 declaration gave rise ceased at Sir James Hannen's frown of impatience. 
 
 Sir Henry James now proceeded to read the statement which the witness 
 ,gave to ]Mr. Soames last December. In this statement Coffey, describing 
 -himself as a newspaper reporter and a member of the Limerick branch of the 
 Land League, said that he was present at a meeting at which it was resolved 
 that an emergency man should be " done away with "; that he was done away 
 'with by two men named D^vyer; that the League gave the Dwyers ^35 to help 
 a.h3m tD escape from Ireland ; that he (Coffey) was deputed to see them out of 
 
1 82 Tuesday] Diary of [Mar. 12 » 
 
 the counliy, Init that they were arrested all the same ; and next, because there 
 was no evidence against them, acquitted ; and that, finally, the two Dwyers. 
 were taken care of by the Land League. 
 
 During Sir Henry James's rapid reading of Coffey's statement, Coffey himself 
 presented a curious sjiectacle for contemplation. At first he looked stupidly 
 awkward. He twirled the ends of his moustache, and put them between his- 
 teeth, grimacing as if he were trying hard to chew them. His face flushed. 
 Then it grew palish. He lurched about, from side to side. Then, stretching 
 out his arms splaywise over the ledge of the box, he placed his chin on his- 
 folded hands and balanced himself upon his elbow joints. In that position he 
 gained self-possession. His half-closed eyes twinkled, and as he gazed at 
 Sir Henry James through the corners of them he smiled slowly, he even chuckled y. 
 as if he were overcome by the humour of the situation. 
 
 " Now," said Sir Henry, looking up from his paper, " is that true ? " No ; 
 it was all false, all the effusion of a fertile imagination — save the one or two- 
 statements about his profession and ])lace of residence. All that about the- 
 Dwyers tr)-ing to get to America with League money was " a fabrication." He 
 could not recollect if the Emergency man and the man ^Vheeler (there were two- 
 victims) were murdered. He could not even say if the Dwyers were arrested. 
 But the next moment he admitted that two men were arrested. So that that 
 part of his stor}' was not " imagination " pure and simple. But how could he 
 explain the fact that Dwyer was the name of the persons who actually were 
 arrested ? " Do you mean to say that that was a coincidence ? " — Yes — a pure 
 coincidence ; he imagined the names. "And you tell that to their lordships?" 
 remarked Sir Henry James, quietly. — " Yes," answered Coffey, glancing at the- 
 Bench ; and on the instant there was a burst of laughter all over the courts 
 His astonishing "coincidences," his inventive resource, showed that the mantle 
 ©f Richard Pigott had fallen upon Timothy Coffey. Coffey's face flushed. 
 Again he chewed his moustaches. He moved about uneasily. His smile was. 
 less confident, less impudent than before. 
 
 He was losing his self-possession, going off his guard, as appeared with swift,, 
 dramatic effect in the very next incident. " Ever heard of the Dwyers since?" 
 said Sir Henry James. " No," and then, with a careless gesture, "nor their- 
 people either." " AYhat ! What people?" exclaimed Sir Henry James, quick 
 as lightning. Coffey looked utterly confounded as Sir Henr}- James, bending - 
 forward, repeated his question, in a sharp, severe, urgent tone, quite unusual, 
 with him, ""What people?" " \Yhose people?" " Of whom do you speak?" 
 Alas ! Mr. Timothy Coftey, of county Limerick. ^Yho can the people be who> 
 belong to other people who only exist in " a fertile imagination " ? Cofiey told 
 Sir Henry James that if he wanted to find out who the people were he must 
 search the county of Limerick. Then he said he did not know who the people 
 were who left the country. His mind was in a state of confusion ; and the- 
 greater his confusion, the more impudent became his manner. Then the 
 President interfered. "^Yi]l you endeavour to conduct yourself with decency?" 
 said Sir James. " If you do not conduct yourself in a difierent manner I will, 
 commit you to prison. Be cautious ; I will not be trifled with." "Neither 
 will I," exclaimed Coftey, drawing himself bolt upright, and facing the 
 President. " You are consciously or unconsciously," continued Sir James 
 Hannen, "exhibiting scmething which is painful to see in your character. 
 Attend to counsel. If you do not conduct yourself properly I shall commit 
 you to prison." "All right," said Coffey. " I don't consider it all right," said 
 the President, " and take care you do not provoke me." " Take care of that 
 man," exclaimed Sir James Hannen, as the Court rose for the afternoon, 
 adjournment. So Cofiey was taken in charge of the court superintendent.. 
 Coffey fortified himself wiih a plate cf soup in the witness-hex, where he sati 
 during the half-hour's interval. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Coinmission. [Mar. 12. 183 
 
 At two o'clock Sir Henry James resumed his cross-examination of his 
 own witness. Was it true — as stated in the deposition — that Mr. Finucane 
 and Mr. Abraham had at a Land League meeting in July, 1882, supported 
 a proposition to blow up Apjohn's house, used as an emergency residence for 
 caretakers of evicted farms ? No, It was totally untrue. And Coffey made 
 that statement about the two gentlemen, knowing it to be untrue. And it was 
 equally untrue that a man named Hayes had been told off to do the work. 
 Kext he stated that he did not know whether the gentlemen he had named 
 (Mr. Abraham among them) were leaguers or not, although in his deposition 
 he had described them as leaguers ; but he said that he had seen Mr. Abraham 
 at League meetings more than once. Not leaguers ; "were they members of 
 the committee? " asked Sir Henry. Coffey did not know. " What do you mean 
 by a committee?" asked Sir Henry. Here Coffey's temper gave way. "You 
 mean to trifle with me," said he ; "I appeal to your lordships." " I do not 
 intend to be trifled with," exclaimed the President, sternly, " I shall deal with 
 you when we come to the end of the examination." Then he repeated his 
 assertion that he told a lie when in his first statement he said he had joined the 
 Fenian Brotherhood. He had also told a lie when he said that Fenian 
 membership cards Avere circulated among the leaguers. As Sir Henry James 
 put his questions, he read out each passage from the witness's original deposi- 
 tion. Here is one passage — " I had one of those cards, but I destroyed it, 
 fearing that my house would be searched." Is that true? asked Sir Henry 
 James. It was not. The " Rev. Mr. Higgins," who at a League meeting 
 declared that there were only two black sheep in the flock, and that they were 
 to be boycotted, was also the creation of Coffey's imagination. The next 
 citation, about Mr. Finucane's and Mr. Abraham's endorsing Mr. Higgins's 
 sentiments, was also utterly baseless — " every word of it." And who is this 
 Captain Bell whom you name in your original statement ? Bell ! why Coffey 
 never even heard of him. "If he exists, it is only a coincidence." " As far 
 as you know, he was not in existence then ? " " He might and might not be." 
 " Was he in existence, sir ? " asked Sir Henry, sharply. " Well, there was a 
 Captain Bell." Coffey gave similar answers about the other " leaguers," whom 
 he named — McSweeney, Mulligan, and the rest. " Are these persons of your 
 own imagination ? " " Yes," was the answer, " but they might have existed 
 as private individuals of the community." In a few seconds after this hope- 
 lessly puzzling answer. Sir Henry James sat down, and resigned Timothy 
 Coffey into the hands of Mr. Reid. Mr. Reid plunged at once into the money 
 question. Here is a specimen of the cross-examination : — 
 
 Have you received money from the police or from the Castle ? — I received £^ or £s from a 
 policeman named Doonan for my first statement. 
 
 How much money did you get to come to London ? — Well, I looked upon the first £^ as 
 secret service money: then I got ^5 with a subpoena. I next telegraphed to Mr. Soames that 
 I could not go to London unless I got p^ioo to defray my expenses. 
 
 ]\Ir. Reid— I call for that telegram. 
 
 Witness — I have a copy at my address, 44, Torrington-square. 
 
 Mr. Reid — I call for any other telegram sent by this witness to Mr. Soames. 
 
 Witness — I can produce all the correspondence that has passed between us. 
 
 Mr. Reid — Now let us pass from that. How much money did you receive ?— After that 
 telegram I got a letter from Mr. Soames saying he could not comply with it. I held 
 "stiff reins,'' and after a short time Mr. Shannon called upon me. We had a chat, and in 
 consequence I got the sum of ^^50 from Mr. Shannon. He paid me in his own office, and 
 in Bank of England notes. 
 
 What did you do with the money ? — It enabled me to see London. 
 
 Have you been staying in London since? — Yes, and on the Monday or Tuesday after 
 the adjournment of the Court previous to Christmas I saw Mr. Soames, and I got a sum 
 of ;^40 additional. That was the day I signed the first statement. INIr. Soames paid me 
 by cheque. 
 
 What other money did you receive ?— Since then I have received something like _;^20 from 
 Mr. Soames. Also, while I was staying at my hotel, a messenger served me with a new 
 subpoena, and gave me a guinea. That is all the money I have received. 
 
1 84 Tuesday] Diary of [Mar. 12. 
 
 Then, in answer to further questions from Mr. Reid, the witness began to 
 describe how he first came across Doonan ; how it was Doonan who made the 
 first advance, telling him (Coffey) that if he gave valuable information he would 
 be handsomely rewarded ; and how he and Doonan had " a liquor" together ; 
 and how he next saw Mr. Shannon ; and how Mr. Shannon told him that Mr. 
 Soames was a " very decent fellow." Altogether Coffey had received £i\$ 
 since November 8th, the date of his arrival in London and of his first intro- 
 duction to metropolitan life. 
 
 Then Sir Henry James made a last attempt upon his witness, Timothy 
 Coffey. But from Timothy Coffey vSir Henry could get nothing satisfactory ; 
 so Sir Henry sat down, after drawing from Cofifey an admission that he had 
 asked ]Mr. Soames the other day for more money, and that he had been refused. 
 Cofifey resembled Pigott in his love of lucre, as well as in his inventiveness and 
 luck in coincidences. Cofifey was coolly w^alking out of the box when the usher 
 stopped him. 
 
 Sir James Hannen had already warned the prisoner that he would deal with 
 him at the end of the examination. He kept his word. Sir James spoke as 
 follows : — 
 
 We are of opinion that you have been guilty of a gross contempt of court. In the first 
 place 3-our manner has been insolent both to the counsel and to the Court, but I takethe 
 opportunity of stating that in our judgment you have been guilty of a still more serious 
 contempt of court. You have avowed that you have told a long tissue of lies for the express 
 purpose of deceiving the persons to whom you made it, and causing j-ourself to be brought 
 up asa witness in order that you might then tell what you call the truth. That was a 
 most insolent interference with the course of justice. It was foisting j-ourself upon the 
 Court and taking up the time of the Court for the purpose only of befooling those who 
 had taken your evidence and coming here with that intention. By taking up the time of 
 the Court in that manner we have no doubt that ^-ou have been guilty of contempt of Court, 
 and we accordingly commit you to prison for it. 
 
 The witness — If yoxi will suspend judgment for an hour until I can send to Torrington- 
 square for the necessary documents, I can fix the contempt of Court upon the proper 
 shoulders. 
 
 The President — It must be proved hereafter, if it really be any mitigation. 
 
 The witness still continued to remonstrate in an excited manner. 
 
 The President — I have said all I have to say on the matter. Let him be removed. 
 
 Cofifey was astounded. He became excited. " Let me have my letters from 
 Torrington-square," said he, "and it will be seen that it is not I who am 
 guilty of contempt of Court, but that those are guilty who put me here ; I told 
 IVIr. Soames I would give no evidence." Cofifey would continue his protest; 
 but Sir James exclaimed sharply, "Let him be removed." Then Cofifey 
 became defiant. "Intimidation in its worst form," he exclaimed, as, with 
 flushed face, he disappeared through the doorway in the screen beneath the 
 judges' bench. 
 
 Then Mr. Soames, stepping into the box, said he had refused applications of 
 the witness for money, and that Cofifey told him he meant to emigrate. The 
 last witness of the day was Dominic O'Connor, who said that he had been 
 sworn in as a Fenian by P. J. Sheridan. If Dominic was called to prove 
 friendship between Parnellites and Fenians, he proved, or at least stated, the 
 very reverse. At the Sligo election of 1880, the members of the Brotherhood 
 were opposed to Mr. Parnell and Mr. A. O'Connor. Mr. Parnell was " rro 
 friend " of the Brotherhood, said Dominic, replying to Mr. Reid. The 
 Brotherhood had "no friendship" for Mr. Parnell — the feeling was "quite 
 the other way." 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Mar. 13. 185 
 
 SIXTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 March 13. 
 
 To-day Mr. Soames related the story of his intercourse with Timothy Coffey. 
 A queer story of a soUcitor at war with his own witness. Scarcely had their 
 intercourse begun, when Timothy behaved like a son of the horse-leech. 
 ■"Give," said Tim, when T/ie Times subpoenaed him ; and what he wanted 
 Mr. Soames to give was one hundred pounds. All this, and a great deal more, 
 came out in the letters which passed between Coffey and Mr. Soames, and 
 which were read out in court. Coffey threatened that if he did not get his 
 hundred pounds he would not obey his subpoena. That was by telegram. 
 Mr. Soames retorted that their lordships could compel his appearance, but he 
 added that if Coffey did appear, he would be no loser in a pecuniary sense. Of 
 ••course, before writing in such strong terms to Coffey, Mr. Soames had satisfied 
 •^limself that Coffee would prove a valuable witness. For he had already sent 
 Mr. Shannon to Ballinasloe, and there Coffey made his "statement" to Mr. 
 Shannon. But subsequently to his receipt of this statement, Mr. Soames had, 
 ;as he thought, learned that Coffey would give additional information. 
 
 Next came, into Mr. Soames's hand, Coffey's letter of the 19th of November 
 ■^ast. In that letter Coffey expressed his anxiety to dispel "any illusion" which 
 jVIr. Soames might entertain as to the worth of the statements which Coffey had 
 already made to Mr. Soames's representative, Mr. Shannon, and to the police 
 authorities. The story which he had given to Police-sergeant Chalk was 
 " untrue ; " he assured Mr. Soames that he could not help The Times "in the 
 -least." Whereupon Mr. Soames wrote to Coffey on the 22nd of November, 
 saying that he w*as under no illusion whatever. At last, Coffey arrived in 
 London. This was on the 17th of December, and he at once called on Mr. 
 :Soames, "without solicitation." I went over his statement with him ; he had 
 a copy of it while I read it ; he signed it after he had made a few corrections, 
 and he declared the whole statement to be true. He even told me that he was 
 prepared to prove it in the witness-box. Then Coffey went back to Ireland. 
 He returned to London. And then he began to have fits of indisposition. He 
 was ill when he should have been at court, waiting to be called. Now and 
 then Mr. Coffey would write and say he was getting better. Mr. Soames even 
 sent his family doctor to take stock of the patient. Then Mr. Soames threat- 
 -ened to arrest Timothy. Timothy had his revenge. He appeared in the 
 -box and bullied Sir H. James, and defied their lordships, and behaved badly all 
 round. 
 
 Mr. Reid then endeavoured to find out from Mr. Soames what precautions 
 he had taken to verify the statements made to him by a witness with whom he 
 Avas at war. As Coffey -had said in his previous evidence, he had for a short 
 time in 1881 been supplying the Irish Government with "information." 
 -Coffey's reports containing all this "information" were now produced in 
 ■court. The authorities had given the use of them to Mr. Soames. And the 
 -reports described how " a regular organizing expedition, composed of extreme 
 Nationalists," was at that time going about Ireland preaching sedition ; how 
 the members of the expedition were disguised as commercial travellers, how 
 they visited fairs, and how they were cognisant of the invention of a machine 
 for blowing up British ships. m'^ 
 
 That was a kind of information difficult to test. However, Coffey asked 
 
 " the Castle " for money to assist him in watching the commercial travellers. 
 
 But here was the curious point to which Mr. Reid now invited Mr. Soames's 
 
 .attention. In all these " reports " of Coffey's to Dublin Castle, there was not 
 
 the smallest reference to the most important of the supposed revelations 
 
1 86 Wcdjicsday] Diary of [Ma7\ 13.. 
 
 in Coffey's statement of the 17th of Deccml:)er, the revelation, namely, that 
 Mr. Abraham, M.P., and Mr. P'inucane, M.P., were at that very period support- 
 ing Land League resolutions of murder and incendiarism. It seemed to Mr.. 
 Reid that such important facts, supposing them to be facts, would have been 
 recorded in INfr. Coffey's "confidential" reports to the Castle. It also seemed 
 to him natural that Mr. Soames should have compared the December state- 
 ment with the report. " I have not read the reports through," said Mr. 
 Soames, with emphasis. 
 
 Mr. Reid contrives to throw a suggestion of great surprise into a favourite 
 formula of his — "Am I to understand?" And Mr. Soames looked troubled 
 and impatient when Mr. Reid, after a long pause, asked in his blandest^ 
 quietest manner, whether he " was to understand " that before accepting such 
 grave accusations against members of Parliament, Mr. Soames had taken the 
 trouble to check Coffey's statements. Mr. Soames replied that he felt quite 
 satisfied with Irish police assurances of the trustworthiness of the December 
 statement. INIr. Soames confessed he did not even try to find out any persons 
 who had been present at the meeting at which INIr. Abraham was reported to 
 have instigated murder. 
 
 Did j'ou not think that in the case of a serious charge of murder against a man like Mr. 
 Abraham, or any one else, it was incumbent upon you to ask for some details or some names 
 from the man who gave the information ? 
 
 Mr. Soames replied that he showed the statement to the local authorities, who believed it to 
 be a true statement. Mr. Soames added, " I did make particular inquiries." 
 
 Of whom ? — Of police authorities. 
 
 Who were they? — Gibbons and Doolan. Gibbons went through the statement word 
 for word in my office, and said that from his own local knowledge he believed every word 
 of it. 
 
 Did he tell j-ou that from his local knowledge he believed Mr. Abraham had advocated 
 murder? — He told me that he believed Mr. Abraham had been mixed up in all kinds of" 
 matters. 
 
 Now we come to the statement about Apjohn's house. He says that was blown up, and 
 that Mr. Finucane and I\Ir. Abraham were present at a meeting of the League at which it 
 was decided that outrage should be perpetrated. Did you make inquiries about that ? — I told 
 you generally' of the inquiries I made. 
 
 Has any one of the inspectors or policemen, whom you have made those inquiries of, been. 
 called as a witness ? — I believe Doolan has. 
 
 And has he been asked any question bearing upon this ? — No. But he would have been 
 had the counties been taken right through. 
 
 Mr. Reid having finished with Mr. Soames, Mr. Biggar put a few questions 
 to him, from which he learned that Mr. Soames had sent an agent to P. J. 
 Sheridan in America, and that as soon as ]\Ir. Soames learned that Sheridan 
 wanted "twenty thousand pounds" to come to England, ]\Ir. Soames tele- 
 graphed to the agent to "come back." Naturally. 
 
 Then the name of John Leavy was called. . Mr. Lea\-y was a racquet 
 maker of Deptford. Mr. Leavy was a short, slight, slope-shouldered man, 
 with a big, bony face, bald head, and long, grizzled, patriarchal beard. He 
 appeared in the box in order to connect some prominent Nationalists with. 
 Fenian activity, in organizing " centres " all over Ireland, and in superintend- 
 ing the secret importation of arms. Leavy gave his evidence with great de- 
 liberation. He kept his hands in his pockets, and gazed at his shoe points 
 before giving his answers. INIr. Lea\-y was an informer ; and he claimed to 
 have been in an excellent position to know what "the organization" was doing. . 
 He described himself as an ex-member of the Fenian Supreme Council. This 
 body met at Dublin. Tslr. O'Connor Power represented Connaught on this 
 Supreme Council. And a Mr. Johnson, of Belfast, "represented the north.'*" 
 Mr. Leavy's audience laughed at this last statement, as if Mr. Leavy had meant 
 Mr. Johnston, INI. P., of Ballykilbeg. We had honorary members on our 
 Supreme Council, continued Mr. Leavy ; and among them were Pat Egan, jNIr. 
 Eiggar, Charles Kickam, Mr. Innes of Preston, and ]\Ir. John Walsh of 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Comviission. [Mar. 13. 187 
 
 Middlesborough. And this Supreme Council had its president, Mr. Kickam ;: 
 its secretary, INIr. Doran of Queenstown ; and its treasurer, Mr. Patrick Egan. 
 Leavy -was a member of the Supreme Council for three or four years ; and he 
 resigned because a fellow-Fenian, James Carey, the informer, threatened one 
 day, in the streets of Dublin, that he would take his life. He explained this 
 enmity of Carey's by saying that he had just been opposing Carey's election to 
 the chairmanship of the Dublin " Directory " — the Fenian body which super- 
 vised all the centres of Dublin, and received reports from them as to impor- 
 tation of arms. Said Leavy, Carey's appointment to the chairmanship was- 
 supported by Mr. Egan and Mr. Brennan, both officials of the Land League. 
 Such was the substance of his story to Sir Henry James. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Asquith, Leavy was unable to fix the dates of his 
 connection with the Fenian organization, or of the supreme council meetings at 
 which he had seen Mr. Biggar and other leading Parnellites. At one of these 
 meetings, held at the Imperial Hotel, Dublin, and at which he had spoken to 
 Mr. Biggar, a resolution was passed excluding members of the Parliamentary 
 party from the supreme council. Mr. Asquith asking him whether the 
 resolution did not imply general hostility on the part of the Fenian Brotherhood 
 to the action of the Parliamentary party, the witness stoutly maintained that it 
 did not — that it did not mean war to the knife between the Nationalist party 
 and the Brotherhood as such, but only that the members of the Parliamentary 
 party should not be given too much influence by being admitted to the member- 
 ship of the supreme council. 
 
 Having answered a question or two by Mr. Asquith, the witness was taken 
 in hand by Mr. Davitt, and next by Mr. Biggar. Leavy said that in i88i he 
 was imprisoned, as a suspect, in Kilmainham. " And when you came out," 
 said Mr. Davitt, "you were prosecuted for embezzlement?" " I was," said 
 Leavy, after a pause. And he was convicted and sentenced to a year's iin- 
 prisonment with hard labour. Leavy flushed as he admitted all this. But Leavy 
 went on to explain that two of the directors of the company whose money he 
 was accused of embezzling, " came to me just before the prosecution, and 
 offered me my interest back in the contract I had with them if I would give 
 up my opposition, and return to them." "But was that in writing?" Mr. 
 Davitt asked, sharply. No ; the offer was made to him verbally. Then he 
 admitted that he had been fined five pounds by the Dublin Health Committee 
 for carrying on an unwholesome business (or a wholesome business unwhole- 
 somely), but that to avoid paying the money he left Dublin. Then INIr. 
 Davitt asked him if he ever carried on an illicit manufacture of whisky in 
 Dublin, but this the witness stoutly denied. There was an amusing passage in 
 Leavy's cross-examination by Mr. Biggar. In his examination-in-chief Leavy 
 said that he had met Mr. Biggar, and talked to him, at the Fenian meeting at 
 which the resolution (already described) was passed. Said Leavy now, when 
 confronted by Mr. Biggar, " I remember your meeting me outside the room 
 where the resolution was passed, and offering me one hundred pounds if I 
 would have the resolution rescinded." At this declaration Mr. Biggar, who 
 had been looking sharply and severely at Leavy, fairly burst out laughing. The 
 people in court and the lawyers laughed also. "Do you swear that?" said 
 Mr. Biggar, resuming his gravity. "Yes," replied the witness, with a 
 determined little nod. Whereupon Mr. Biggar, with a half amused, half 
 contemptuous expression, remarked that he did not like contradicting a witness 
 on his oath, but that he must say Mr. Leavy's little story was false. 
 
 The next witness was the most important of the day. He was the witness 
 who professed to know about Frank Byrne, and Byrne's wife, and "Number 
 One," and a certain parcel of knives in Byrne's possession, and about a certain 
 famous payment of a hundred pounds to Mr. Byrne by ]\Ir. Parnell. George 
 Mulquecny was this witness's name. He was a shortish, thick-set young man,. 
 
1 88 Wednesday] Diary of [Mur 13. 
 
 with a buU-Joggish, self-complacent, conceited, but not unintelligent expres- 
 sion. He was a Cork man, Mulqueeny. But he had been in London for the 
 last nine years — clerk in the Victoria Docks. He had been a good many 
 things in his day, Mulqueeny. He was a Fenian brother, sworn in London, 
 in 187 1. He was a member of the Irish League organization in London, and 
 also secretary to the Catholic Young Men's Society of London. Mulqueeny, 
 at a later stage of his examination, said that a sort of biography of him had 
 been written from " the Nationalist point of view." Mulqueeny made this 
 interesting communication with an air of self-consequence. It was amusing to 
 observ^e the off-hand, patronizing way in which he acknowledged that he knew 
 this, that, or the other Irish politician. "Yes," "Oh, yes," he would say, 
 with a little toss up of the head and a down-thrust of his hands into his 
 trousers' pockets. That was when he was asked about the small fry. But 
 when the Attorney-General inquired whether he knew Mr. Parnell, Mulqueeny's 
 manner became deferential. " I have the honour of Mr. Parnell's acquaint- 
 ance," he replied, slightly bowing, but with his hands still in his pockets. 
 Mr. Justice Smith's face slowly relaxed into a smile. 
 
 Mulqueeny knew Frank Byrne. Byrne was secretary of the London League, 
 and his office was in Palace-chambers, Westminster. As for Mulqueeny him- 
 self, he had, in conjunction with Mr. Biggar and Mr. Frank Bryne, opened 
 League branches in various parts of London. One in particular he remem- 
 bered. It was at Tower-hill, and not only Byrne but Tynan (Number One) 
 was with him. ^Mulqueeny was an important man in the organization : he was 
 : a member of the Palace-chambers Executive Committee, and remained a 
 member until 1883. Mulqueeny gave a description of the financial state of 
 the London League in 1881-2. The League, he said, was "very badly off" 
 — " in a state of bankruptcy," so that we " raised money by concerts and that 
 sort of thing." And he added that the London League, on several occasions, 
 got help from the League in Dublin. ' ' I remember three remittances of one 
 hundred pounds each coming from Dublin." 
 
 Had Byrne ever showed Mulqueeny any arms ? Oh, yes ; revolvers ; and 
 he showed them some time before the Phoenix Park murder, but Mulqueeny 
 could not say how long. " Did Byrne ever mention any other weapons ? " he 
 was asked. " Unfortunately he did," replied Mulqueeny with a rather 
 theatrical solemnity, as he bent his head downwards. " He showed me a 
 brown paper parcel in a drawer in the offices of the National League in Palace- 
 chambers. They were knives ; and Byrne said that the doctor ' had been buy- 
 ing some new surgical instruments.' " (This was Dr. Hamilton Williams, 
 whom the witness had already named as one of the London leaguers.) Could 
 Mr. Mulqueeny tell how long before the Phoenix Park murders it was that he 
 saw the knives? He could not " fix the date." Then he said he remembered 
 how one night Frank Byrne's brother dropped a heavy parcel upon his (Mul- 
 queeny's) "toe"; how he then learned that the parcel contained rifles, and 
 how he saw rifles next day in Frank's house at Peckham. 
 
 Mulqueeny next identified a letter that was handed to him in the witness- 
 box, a letter of Frank Byrne's addressed from Paris to the executive, and con- 
 taining this sentence, " Mr. ]McSweeney willalso inform you that I received the 
 promised check for ;^ioo from Mr. Parnell on the day I left London." 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Reid, Mulqueeny called Tynan a " mystery." Fle 
 would not call him a ruffian; "had I considered Tynan and Byrne to be 
 ruffians I would not have mixed with them." " Up to December, 1882," %vhen 
 disclosures were made about the Phoenix Park murders, ]Mulqueeny thought 
 Tynan "respectable," and he believed in Byrne until he heard that Byrne had 
 confessed in America to his complicity in the crime. Mulqueeny next remarked 
 that he was a little surprised when he saw the knives in Byrne's office, but that 
 ^he did not consider it a suspicious circumstance. Then he admitted that even 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Mar. 13. 189- 
 
 after Byrne's flight he took Byrne's effects to Paris. "Oh," exclaimed Mr. Reid 
 in surprise, "you did not, then, consider him a criminal ? " " Well," said Mul- 
 queeny, ' ' I had not as yet reason to suspect him ; and I did not like to throw 
 him overboard." The last words Mulqueeny uttered in a tone of high 
 indifference. Then Mr. Asquith followed Mr. Reid. Questioned about the 
 financial position of the London League, the witness repeated his statement 
 that owing to its " poverty " the London branch had made applications to 
 Dublin for money. Then Mr. Asquith asked if he remembered three letters, 
 dated 17th and 29th December, 1SS2, and 5th of January, 1883, and read at the 
 League Offices, in two of which letters Frank Byrne advised an application to- 
 the Dublin League, through Mr. Parnell, for one hundred pounds, and in the 
 third of which [that dated 5th of Jan., 1883] Mr. Byrne said that he had not 
 received Mr. Parnell's reply, and that, owing to the %\ant of money, the salaries 
 of the League officials were in arrears. [Mr. Byrne sent the letters to the- 
 office because he himself was unwell at the time.] But there was a fourth 
 letter of Mr. Byrne's, the letter dated Feb. 8, 1883, from Paris [a month after 
 the third letter already named] in which fourth letter Mr. Byrne acknowledged 
 the receipt of the hundred pounds from Mr. Parnell, and also enclosed a. 
 balance-sheet of accounts. "Now," said Mr. Asquith, " did you not under- 
 stand that the hundred pounds were given by INIr. Parnell in reply to the- 
 repeated applications of the London League for assistance?" "That was. 
 possible," replied Mulqueeny. Asked if he looked at the balance-sheet, 
 enclosed in INIr. Byrne's Paris letter, he replied that he might have seen it ;- 
 that it was "very likely" he had seen it; but he would not say whether or 
 not he had found that Mr. Parnell's hundred pound cheque was accounted 
 for in the enclosure. "You know Captain O'Shea?" said Mr. Asquith.. 
 "Yes," was the reply ; and then he acmitted that " very possibly" he might 
 have told Captain O'Shea about the existence of that letter. " If Captain 
 O'Shea said so I would not contradict him," the witness continued. Here is 
 an extract from ]\Ir. Asquith's cross-examination. 
 
 Did you tell Captain O'Shea that certain people knew that Mr. Parnell had paid for the- 
 escape of the Phoenix Park murderers? — I don't think so. 
 
 Then if Captain O'Shea says that, what he saj'S is not correct? — I don't know. 
 
 You must know whether you made such a statement as that to Captain O'Shea. 
 
 Possibly I did, but I have no recollection of it. If Captain O'Shea says I did, then I 
 did. 
 
 Did you tell him that this letter of Frank Byrne's had been taken away from the rcoms in 
 Palace-chambers?— I cannot say that I told him that. 
 
 Did you tell him the police had taken it away?— I don't remember. 
 
 Now tell me— did you tell Captain O'Shea that certain people knew that ]\Ir. Parnell had 
 paid for the escape of the Phoenix Park murderers ?— Well, to my mind he did. 
 
 Did what ? — Paid for the escape of Byrne. 
 
 How?— By the ;^ico. 
 
 Ar.d do you now suggest that this/ico was paid by Mr. Parnell to Byrne to enable him to 
 escape from justice ? — I suggest that the money was sent to Byrne, and that he used it to go 
 10 .America. 
 
 In other wcrds, that Byrne misappropriated the m.cney? — Probably that is so. 
 
 That INIr. Farrcll having sent him ;^ico for the Lard League purposes, he bolted to Paris,-, 
 and thence to America?— Well, I don t know. Possibly that is correct. 
 
 Was that what jou meant -when you told Captain O'Shea that certain people knew that 
 Mr. Parnell had paid for the escape of the Phoenix Paik e urderers ?— I dcn't think I told him 
 anything of the kind. 
 
 If you made that statement to Captain O'Shea, had you any foundation for it other than 
 that this i^ico had been, as you believed, misappropriated by Byrne? — I can't say. 
 
 Have you any other ground for the statement now? — I had nothing else in my mind but 
 Byrne's letter. 
 
 The remaining questions put to Mulqueeny were of minor importance. In 
 a few minutes, and after a long pause — during which everybody must have 
 guessed what w as coming — Sir Henry James rose. He said — 
 
igo Tuesday] Diary of [April 2. 
 
 My Lords — In the absence of my learned friend the Attorney-General, I have to say that 
 these are the witnesses that we are now in a position to place before your lordships in support 
 •of the case we have had to present to you on behalf of oar clients. 
 
 And SO the case for TAe Times closed at seventeen minutes past three 
 o'clock. 
 
 The rest of the day's business was merely formal. The President announced 
 that he was not prepared to issue an interim report on the forged letters case. 
 Sir Charles Russell briefly sketched the line of defence which he would follow 
 in replying to The Times case. Excepting Mr. Dillon, against whom nothing 
 of any consequence was alleged, all the Members against whom any evidence 
 had been given, would appear in the witness-box. He would also meet every 
 instance in which the Central Office of the League had been charged with 
 criminality ; and every instance of alleged evidence against local branches. 
 But to answer the charges against members of the League, in their private, 
 individual capacity, would, said vSir Charles Russell, necessitate his calling 367 
 witnesses from Mayo alone. He would therefore have to consider how he could 
 present his case, without putting in such an enormous mass of evidence. For 
 this reason he asked for an adjournment till Tuesday, 2nd of April. In grant- 
 ing Sir Charles Russell's request for an adjournment, the President intimated 
 that he would issue an order for the release from prison of Mr. W. O'Brien, 
 M.P. , and Mr. Edward Harrington, M.P., to enable them to appear before 
 -the Commission. 
 
 SIXTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 April 2. 
 
 Precisely at half-past ten o'clock Sir Charles Russell opened his case for the 
 defence. He was to lift the veil which the Attorney-General had dropped over 
 pre-Land League L'eland. He was to show how landlord greed and tenant 
 misery produced their baleful crop of disturbance and crime years and genera- 
 tions before the Nationalist party and the Land and National Leagues came 
 -into being. 
 
 The accused, whose story we shall soon hear, laugh to scorn the notion 
 that Ireland has been fairly painted by the sixteen district inspectors, and the 
 ninety-eight subordinate members of the constabulary, by the landlords and land- 
 lords' agents, by the eighteen informers — most of them the sorriest specimens of 
 humanity — who were among the three hundred and forty odd witnesses examined 
 on behalf of The Times. As Sir Charles Russell pointedly remarked at the 
 beginning of his speech, only one priest — one member of the class of Irishmen 
 whose knowledge of the lives and circumstances of their fellow-countrymen is 
 ■the most complete and intimate — has been called by The Times counsel. 
 
 Besides these witnesses, said Sir Charles Russell, there have been five 
 experts — " Captain O'Shea, and the informer Delaney, and I am afraid I must 
 add Mr. Soames and Mr. Macdonald ; and the fifth, Mr. Inglis, called and 
 -sworn, but, fortunately for Mr. Inglis's reputation, not examined." The 
 ironical implication in the words " fortunately not examined " was not lost upon 
 Sir Charles's audience. 
 
 The audience, if that is the right word, was not uncomfortably large — not so 
 large as during the memorable days when the costly fabric of the "letters" 
 case was tumbling into ludicrous ruin about the ears of the dealer in obscene 
 photographs who was its solitary support, yet who made his employers believe 
 that it would last for ever. Among the earliest visitors who arrived in court 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [April 2. 191 
 
 Avas Mrs. Gladstone, who found a seat near the jury-box, well in front of Sir 
 •Charles Russell. Mr. Biggar, Mr. Davitt, and Mr. Parnell were in their usual 
 places on the solicitors' bench. Sir Charles Russell himself arrived early. In 
 front of him was a heap of books on Ireland — Lecky's, Froude's and others — 
 of which he made good use during his five-and-a-half hours' speech ; also a 
 basket containing the notes of his speech. 
 
 This first day's instalment of his speech may be divided under the following 
 headings : — Who are the accused ? Who are the accusers ? What is the 
 ■accusation ? How has The Times conducted its case ? What have been the 
 predisposing causes of crime — what is the testimony, on that point, of two 
 •centuries of Irish history ? The accused were eighty-five members of the total 
 number of 103 whom Ireland returned to Parliament, although, for some reason 
 unknown to him, the accusers chose to name only sixty-five. History, said Sir 
 Charles Russell, presents no parallel to this preponderating force of representa- 
 tive opinion (as embodied in the Nationalist party) : " some of its members 
 may be more or less indiscreet," but the eighty-five members " are solid." In 
 accusing this party, continued Sir Charles Russell, the opposite party are 
 attempting to do what Edmund Burke declared could never be successfully 
 •done ; they are attempting to indict a whole nation. 
 
 With a contemptuous reference to the absurdity of attacking a " great social 
 revolution " (such as the Irish movement of 1879-1889) as if it were "an Old 
 Bailey " case. Sir Charles passed on to his second question, Who are the 
 accusers ? The answer, as given by the questioner himself, was the reverse of 
 -complimentary to the accusers — " a company, a co-partnership, or a syndicate, 
 I don't know which, called by the public The Times ; a syndicate which in 
 the whole course of its existence had been consistent in at least one thing, un- 
 relenting hostility to the Irish people and their cause." And as an illustra- 
 tion of their undying hostility. Sir Charles quoted The Times^ condemnation 
 •of Lord Mulgrave for having invited " that rancorous and foul-mouthed 
 ruffian O'Connell " to dinner, that same O'Connell whom even " the prin- 
 cipal Irish minister" now claims as "a supporter of his policy." In the 
 .same vein The Times rejoiced over the depopulation of Ireland caused by the 
 famine: "The Irish are gone at last, gone with a vengeance." Sir Charles 
 quoted the words. And the emigrants were likened to rats leaving an empty 
 Tessel for one with a full cargo. "There have been," said Sir Charles, 
 *' transient gleams of statesmanship in the columns of The Times, but these 
 liave been counterbalanced by its insolence — rendered more intolerable by 
 its condescending insolence." There was a sharp, indignant ring in these last 
 words. " But," he added, " we have this consolation; it is the fate of The 
 Thnes to help every cause which it has opposed." 
 
 Coming to the next head — What are the accusations ? Sir Charles enu- 
 merated them : That the Nationalist agitation depended on a paid system of 
 murder and outrage ; that the Nationalist organization assisted murderers and 
 ■other criminals to escape from justice ; that the Nationahst denunciation of 
 crime was false and hypocritical. But if the people who make these charges 
 are serious, asked Sir Charles Russell, why have the accused not been tried at 
 the Old Bailey long ago? Then Sir Charles Russell gave a humorous 
 -description of the conduct of The Times'' case. For many weeks, Lincoln's- 
 inn-fields, Mr. Soames's official headquarters, resembled an Irish police and 
 military station getting ready for an eviction expedition ; " on these benches," 
 here Sir Charles waved his hand, "on these benches Mr. Soames's deputy- 
 inspectors, and police magistrates and constables, have been as thick as leaves 
 in Vallombrosa ; and we have had magistrates taking evidence for The Times, 
 and Irish policemen personally conducting witnesses ; and spies have been 
 doing The Times work ; and the gaols of the kingdom have been scoured to 
 see whether from the refuse within their walls some might be found to testify 
 
192 Tuesday] Diary of [April 2.. 
 
 against the accused." Here came in one of those striking and pathetic passages 
 in which Sir Charles Russell's speech abounded. With a touch of pathos, he 
 called up before the mind's eye a picture of some wretched life-long prisoner^ 
 tempted by some vague prospect of reunion with wife and children, to find for 
 himself a loophole of release in an incriminating tale. Then Sir Charles, con- 
 tinuing his calm, merciless criticism of the tactics of his opponents, complained 
 of the manner in which witnesses had been sprung upon him. And he declared 
 emphatically that the purpose, the unavowed purpose, of the heterogeneous, un- 
 methodical mass of criminal history brought out by the Attorney-General was" 
 to prejudice the minds of the people of England. What else, he asked, could 
 have been the object of recounting the mournful stories of Lady Mountmorres,. 
 of Mrs. Blake, of the Curtin family ? 
 
 Worst of all was the Attorney-General's great sin of omission. In his 
 introductory speech the Attorney-General "gave us no clue" to the state of 
 things out of which grew the Ireland of 1 879. The Attorney-General spoke 
 of the Ireland of 1879 ^s if it had come down " from the firmament," as if 
 "her career began in 1879 " ; as if before 1879 Ireland " were a Garden of 
 Eden"; as if before 1879 " Ireland were a country of patriarchal relations 
 between landlords and tenants, the landlords looking down upon their tenants- 
 with paternal regard, and tenants looking up with eyes full of reverential 
 gratitude." 
 
 In the deHvery of this and similar passages Sir Charles Russell was at his-- 
 best. His satirical description of the Edenic Ireland of Sir Richard Webster- 
 was keenly appreciated. Not once, but many a time, while he showed what 
 the real Ireland was, as distinguished from the imaginary Ireland of her- 
 enemies — the real Ireland of alternating hope and despair, of grateful hearts, 
 of patience and long-suffering and generous forgiveness — did his voice tremble- 
 and falter with emotion. Proceeding to make visible what this Ireland was 
 over which the Attorney- General had drawn the veil — what the soil was out of 
 ■which the crop of discontent, disturbance, and crime inevitably and naturally 
 grew — he quoted extracts from Lecky and Froude and Goldwin Smith, the 
 general drift of which was that Irish crime and discontent were caused by the- 
 combined action of past restrictive legislation against Irish trade and agricul- 
 ture, the penal code, the uncontrolled powers of the landlords, and the general 
 misgovernment of the country. The cattle maiming which the accusers attri- 
 buted to the agitation of the last ten years, existed in the beginning of the 
 eighteenth century. He showed how the Whiteboys' secret society was 
 directed against the landgrabbers, whose name, say T/ie Times witnesses, was 
 not heard of before 1879. The records of the middle portion of the eighteenth 
 century proved that Ireland was not the Eden of Sir Richard Webster — that 
 high rents and confiscation of improvements led to crimes of exactly the same- 
 nature as those which T/ie Times counsel attributed solely to the Land and 
 National Leagues. In those days, said Sir Charles, house burning and death 
 were the penalty of land-grabbing. The Whiteboys already named, the Steel' 
 Boys, the Oak Boys, the Levellers, were all secret societies of the eighteenth- 
 , centur)^, and they were the natural and inevitable results of landlord greed and, 
 cruelty and agrarian misery. 
 
 Even the sturdy Presbyterians of Ulster suffered then as much as the Western 
 and Southern Celts suffer now. They left Ireland and fought on the American 
 side in the War of Independence. Sir Charles Russell showed how crime- 
 diminished whenever the Irish people saw ground for hope in remedial legisla- 
 tion. The years 1780 to 1806 afforded a case in point. From 1S06 to 1820- 
 was a period of relapse into despair, and the mournful round of crime began 
 again. Lastly, Sir Charles Russell illustrated his explanation of the genesis of 
 Irish disturbance and crime by extracts from Sir George Cornewall Lewis, and 
 from the interesting reports of the House of Commons Committee in 1852. Iiv 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [April 3. 193 
 
 that year, just as in 1889, the official witnesses — such as pohce constables, 
 magistrates, inspectors, landlords, land agents — all agreed in testifying to the 
 effect that the discontent and crime were not owing to agrarian causes, and that 
 Ireland could be put right again by a strong dose of coercive law. And sixty 
 years ago as well as now — as the Committee investigations proved — bailiffs 
 were beaten, and herds on evicted farms were murdered ; and the peasantry 
 sympathized with law-breakers, and subscriptions were got up for prisoners 
 accused of crime ; and the law-breakers were labouring-men and the younger 
 sons of small farmers ; and the outrages were most frequent where ejectments 
 were most frequent. 
 
 SIXTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 April 3 
 
 Sir Charles Russell resumed his address with a brief recapitulation of his 
 general argument of yesterday, that distress and crime had in the past history 
 of Ireland accompanied each other like substance and shadow. Where dis- 
 tress was greatest, crime prevailed most. As regards the year 1 879, he 
 illustrated this proposition by the public records of what were then called the 
 distressed districts," in Galway, Mayo, Kerry, Cork, Clare. As to the evil 
 system of agrarian tenure which was mainly, at least, responsible for the 
 misery which prompted the tenantry to commit crime, Sir C. Russell named a 
 long list of high authorities who, either before the Act of Union or after it, 
 wrote in strong condemnation of it. The condemnation, said Sir Charles, is 
 unanimous. "I challenge you," he exclaimed, turning round to where sat 
 TAe Times counsel, " I challenge you to produce a single writer of authority 
 who has ever defended that system." Authoritative writers, differing in 
 political creed, as well in their callings in life, had denounced this system — 
 which, in his address of Tuesday, Sir Charles Russell had described as a 
 system for the good of the few at the expense of the many. Dean Swift 
 condemned the landlord system of Ireland. Bishop Berkeley denounced it. 
 And Lord Townshend. And of course Arthur Young, the greatest authority 
 among them all. And so did Lord Clare, whose words, by the way, recall 
 General Gordon's description of the peasantry of Kerry. What Lord Clare 
 said was that, speaking from his intimate acquaintance with the province of 
 Munster, he believed it was impossible to find "greater human misery" any- 
 where than existed there. The peasantry, said Lord Clare, are "ground to 
 powder by their relentless landlords." So much for authorities before the Act 
 of Union. As to those after the Union, Sir Charles Russell quoted, besides 
 some writers of books, the numerous Parliamentary Reports in 1819, 1823, &c., 
 as also Poor Law Commission Reports, and the Devon and other Commissions. 
 The Devon Commission, of which Sir Charles gave a clear and rapid sketch, 
 was, like all Commissions of the same class, a landlords' Commission, inasmuch 
 as its leading members belonged to the landlord class. And yet, in spite of 
 the natural bias of these members, their reports, as submitted to JParliament, 
 threw a black, mournful shadow upon the land which the Attorney-General's 
 land agent and constabulary witnesses had, with astonishing unanimity, been 
 describing as the home of sunny peace and kindly feeling between landlord 
 and tenant until the leaguers arose to spoil it all. The Devon Commissioners, 
 1843-5, saw that social disorder was inevitable under a continuance of the 
 Irish land system. The Devon report declared that where tenant rights were 
 
 14 
 
194 Wednesday] Diary of [April 3. 
 
 respected, crime was at a minimum, or non-existent. A striking proof of this 
 ■was quoted by Sir Charles Russell from the testimony of one of the most 
 valuable witnesses examined before the Devon Commission, namely, Mr. 
 Hancock, agent to Lord Lurgan. Mr. Hancock pointed out that the Ulster 
 districts in which disturbance existed were precisely those districts in which 
 the ancient tenant right of the province was violated by the landlords. It 
 was Mr. Hancock who declared that if a rising should occur in Ulster, in 
 defence of peasant rights, there was not enough force at the Horse Guards to 
 put it down. Twenty-five years later, when Mr. Gladstone's hrst Land Bill 
 was in progress, and with the advantage of his quarter of a century's additional 
 experience, Mr. Hancock repeated the same general testimony which he had 
 given before the Devon Commission. Sir Charles Russell incidentally drew 
 attention to another cause, besides respect to tenant right, of the general 
 immunity of Ulster from disturbance. Ulster was a manufacturing province, 
 so that labourers removed from the soil were enabled to find there means of 
 subsistence. Given an absence of manufactures and of tenant right, Ulster 
 would have been as harassed by disturbance and crime as Mayo, Clare, or 
 Kerry. Instead of Acts passed for the relief of the peasants, Acts were 
 passed for the relief of landlords, such as the Encumbered Estates Act of 1848, 
 which only served to make over Irish lands to mere jobbers, whose sole object 
 was to wring out of their tenants the largest returns upon the money they 
 had invested. An Act of twenty- eight years ago — a time when the spirit of 
 Irish politics was at its lowest — served chiefly to improve the landlord's powers 
 of ejectment. It granted facilities for " ejectment, purely and simply for 
 non-payment of rent." There was nothing like that in English law, said Sir 
 Charles Russell. As for the Act of 1870, it did to some extent generalize the 
 Ulster system ; but it made no provision against arbitrary increase of rent, and 
 as it excluded leaseholders from its benefits, it tempted the landlords to force 
 leaseholds upon their tenantry. Referring again to the Hancock testimony, 
 Sir Charles Russell pointed out once more the coincidence between the statistics 
 of poverty, ejectment, and crime. Quoting from the official reports before 
 him. Sir Charles Russell sketched the condition of Ireland ten years ago, just 
 when the League was beginning its work. He quoted from the truly appalling 
 testimony given by Mr. Fox to the Mansion House Relief Committee. And 
 he read out Gordon's description of Kerry, as contained in that great man's 
 letter published in T/ie Tijnes. All this is old, it may be said. It is old, and 
 it is unredressed — scenes of wretchedness such as those over the recital of which 
 Sir Charles Russell could hardly restrain his feelings, are still occurring in 
 Ireland at this veiy hour. 
 
 In denouncing the landlord greed, which in Sir Charles Russell's view led to 
 the sad condition of things which made it necessary for the tenants to combine 
 under the Nationalist leaders in self-defence, Sir Charles Russell repudiated 
 with his utmost emphasis and scorn the extreme landlord doctrine of the 
 sacredness of contract. " For that species of sacredness I care nothing," 
 exclaimed Sir Charles Russell. WTiat was "economic rent?" It was the 
 share of the surplus produce which the landlord should take after the labourer 
 and the cultivator had received the full reward of their toil. Three parties 
 were, in the present dispensation of things, interested in this question, the 
 labourer, the tiller, the landlord. If one of these three classes had "to go to 
 the wall," who was the last who should go ? In Sir Charles's opinion, it was 
 the labourer. But in practice the labourer and the tiller were the first to go ; 
 the landlord was the last to suffer ; and the result was that the Irish peasantry 
 were the worst housed, worst fed, and worst clothed population in the civilized 
 world. 
 
 No one who has heard Sir Charles Russell will call statistics uninteresting. 
 It depends upon how they are treated ; and in Sir Charles Russell's hands 
 
Wed7iesday] the Parnell Commission. [April 3. 195 
 
 they are made to tell, vividly and irrefragably, their sad, damning tale. Two 
 most striking characteristics of this speech are its condensation of a vast 
 amount of knowledge, and the presentation of it in a manner so clear and 
 rapid as to enable those who listen to it to seize the scope and significance of it 
 with ease. To complete his sketch of what the Ireland was out of which the 
 Land League grew. Sir Charles Russell showed, from Government statistics, 
 the tremendous fall in the annual crop of potatoes and cereals during the years 
 1876-7-S-9. In that period of four years the potato yield dwindled down to 
 about one quarter ; and the potato crop was, and is, as every one knows, the 
 main food of the bulk of the Irish people, and the only food of multitudes 
 among them. Turning to the cereal crop statistics, Sir Charles showed that 
 here also an enormous fall had taken place ; in those four years the annual 
 value of the crop fell from thirty-six to twenty-two millions. Next, he showed 
 how the area under cultivation was falling off in each of those years by 
 hundreds of thousands of acres. In 1879, too, the loss upon the amount of 
 wages earned by Irish reapers and other labourers habitually crossing over to 
 England for the harvest season amounted to two hundred and fifty thousand 
 pounds for the province of Connaught alone. And the death rate was running 
 up, reaching its maximum in 1880, the first full year of the Land League. 
 
 What did the Irish Secretary of the day, ]\Ir. Lowther, reply to the Irish 
 request for an extension of the Ulster tenant right to Ireland generally? Why, 
 that such a measure would be "pure and undiluted communism." The 
 Government would do nothing. And once more was witnessed the spectacle 
 of a "mendicant " Ireland, as Sir Charles expressed it, with a tremor in his 
 voice — Ireland subsisting miserably on Mansion House and American doles, 
 while the live stock of her peasantry was sold for rent. 
 
 Mr. Forster, Mr. Lowther's successor, had compassion upon the Irish. And 
 the Compensation for Disturbance Bill — a Land League measure, at the 
 moderation of which even extreme Tories of to-day might well feel surprise — 
 ■was thrown out by the Lords in one of the largest assemblage of Peers ever 
 witnessed. But though the Irish peasantry received no help, their landlords, 
 as Sir Charles Russell now proceeded to describe briefly, did ; they had State 
 money lent to them free of interest for the first two years — money upon which 
 some of them contrived to extort four or five per cent, from their tenants. 
 Was it strange, asked Sir Charles Russell, that the Irish leaders should have 
 felt alarmed at the prospect of the rivival of the old, the too familiar, scenes 
 of famine horrors ? Ireland an Eden before the year of the League ? If so, 
 what of the showers of ejectment notices at that critical period, 1879-80 ? Sir 
 Charles had tried to discover the numbers of ejectment notices at that period, 
 by references to entries made by the Irish clerks of the peace. For whenever an 
 Irish landlord was about to eject, warning was given to the workhouse authorities, 
 so that room might be prepared for the castaways. Well, Sir Russell had dis- 
 covered that the Ulster notices were in 1880 twice as numerous as their annual 
 average from 1853 ^^ ^§78 ; the Connaught ones more than twice; the Munster 
 ones more than twice ; and the Leinster notices, 1,363 in 1880, as against 912 
 for the twenty-five years' average. Sir Charles Russell next showed how the 
 increase manifested itself in special localities, such as Galvvay, Mayo, Clare, 
 Kerry, East and West Cork. Here, then, said Sir Charles, was a state of 
 intense distress ; and also an acknowledgment by the Government of the day 
 that relief was necessary. 
 
 The landlords did nothing — but eject. His voice ringing with indignation, 
 Sir Charles Russell asked what would have happened in England, if the like 
 spectacle of peasant hardship and landlord cruelty and greed had been witnessed 
 within her borders. Property has its duties as well as its rights ; but Sir 
 Charles Russell carried the development of Drummond's famous dictum 
 another step forward, by declaring that " Property has no rights inconsistent 
 
196 Wcdncsda}>] Diary of [April 3. 
 
 with the good of the people." The Irish leaders in 1879-80 were driven to 
 take action; their new movement was "justifiable," was necessary "before 
 God and man." As to its human justification, look at the Statute Book ; look 
 at its successive Acts from 1880 to 1887, Acts which " owe their existence to 
 the men who, at the instance of T/ie Times, have been held up to public 
 obloquy and public odium as criminals and accomplices in criminality before 
 the law." The jDarts of the speech of which the foregoing sentences are the 
 baldest summary were delivered with splendid effect. 
 
 " Who are the men " who did it ? What were they ? W^hat their motives ? 
 Did they come together under the cover of a " pretended movement to redress 
 a pretended grievance?" " This is the question which you, my lords, have to 
 decide. For this," Sir Charles continued, " is not an inquiry into crimes inci- 
 dental to the movement. The charge is that these men carefully calculated 
 and applied a system of murder." Sir Charles Russell, in giving a preliminary 
 answer to his question, selected seven men, differing widely in their early 
 history and pre-occupations and advantages or disadvantages. The seven 
 were Mr. Biggar, Mr. Egan, Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Davitt, 
 Mr. Sexton, Mr. Parnell. A man of ability and resolution, ISIr. Biggar was in 
 those critical times engaged in business. Mr. Egan was a man of great 
 capacity against whom — whatever his American career might have been — not 
 a scintilla of proof of crime had been brought in the course of this trial. Both 
 Mr. Biggar and Mr. Egan had joined the Fenian organization, from which 
 they were expelled when they joined Mr. Butt's Home Rule association. Mr. 
 Sexton was a literary man, whose early career in the Irish movement corre- 
 sponded with that of Mr. Biggar. INIr. William O'Brien and Mr. Dillon had 
 joined no association, secret or open, before they joined the League. Mr. 
 O'Brien was a journalist, Mr. Dillon a medical student. Their conduct might 
 not have been always discreet, but their purpose was unselfish and hone.t. 
 They were enthusiasts. " My lords," said Sir Charles Russell, pausing for a 
 moment or two, "there is room in the world for more enthusiasts." The 
 modern world was not so free from " dulness, selfishness, materialism," that it 
 could afford to dispense with men who raised it above its vulgar level. 
 
 Then there was Michael Davitt, the peasant's son, who had none of the 
 early advantages which had been the lot of his countrymen already named. 
 Michael Davitt's earliest memories were of a day when, a child of five years old, 
 he saw his mother weep, when the evictors came and seized the old home, and 
 threw its contents out upon the roadside. His next memory was that of his 
 mother turning away with him from the workhouse door in her anger and grief 
 when the warders refused her admission except on the condition of separation 
 from her child. All this time Mr. Davitt was sitting in front of Sir Charles 
 Russell, his head bent, and resting on his one hand — the left. To this simple, 
 pathetic recital of Mr. Davitt's early history the Court listened in deep silence. 
 It created a profound impression. From the workhouse door, through the 
 convicts' yard, to the foundation of the National Land League of Ireland ; 
 from the obscurity of a Mayo cabin to renown, and respect, all over the 
 English-speaking world — such has been Michael Davitt's lot. Sir Charles 
 Russell had just spoken of the dulness of our English everyday life. WTiatever 
 else the lives of these Irish leaders may have been, they have not been common- 
 place. 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. {April 4. 197 
 
 SIXTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 April 4. 
 
 Haying yesterday shown what the economic and social conditions were 
 that rendered a popular combination "justifiable" and "necessary" "before 
 God and man," Sir Charles Russell to-day resumed his address with an account 
 of the foundation of the Land League. The League was founded on the 2 1st 
 October, 1879, ^nd suppressed in October, 1881. Mr. Parnell, said Sir 
 Charles, was reluctant to join it. ]\Ir. Parnell was by "temperament, by 
 mental character, a Parliamentarian." Mr. Parnell, said Sir Charles, lays no 
 claim to the kincl of eloquence that moves multitudes, but he has discernrnxCnt, 
 resolution, self-control, and prudence. At last, however, Mr. Parnell con- 
 sented to accept the presidentship of the League, the inaugural meeting of 
 which was held in a place famous in the story of the Nationalist movement — 
 the Imperial Hotel, Upper Sackville-street (or as it is now called O'Connell- 
 street), Dublin. 
 
 To show the aim and purpose of the new League, Sir Charles Russell read 
 out \i$\ constitution, its rules, as also a number of public addresses distributed 
 over Iceland by the League leaders at and after its foundation. The first of 
 these ^manifestoes was the ''appeal" to the Irish people. This interesting 
 documlent (read out by Mr. Asquith) declared that the land system of Ireland 
 existedn only for the benefit of the few. It directed attention to the prosperity 
 of coui-itries where the cultivators, unlike the peasants of Ireland, had rights. 
 It rep udiated the notion that the peasant proprietorship which the League 
 woulill fight for meant confiscation. It invited the six hundred thousand 
 pe jasants of Ireland to associate for the purpose of arresting the evil which had 
 uanished milhons of workers from their native land. As for the specific rules 
 which local branches of the League were to enforce, their main object was to 
 prevent land-grabbing " — that is to say, to prevent, by fair means, tenants 
 from occupying lands from which others had been evicted for non-payment of 
 rack-rents. The prevention was to be secured simply by getting as many as 
 possible of the tenants to become members of the League, and by expelhng 
 any members guilty of land-grabbing or of violation of any rule devised by the 
 League for the common good. The connection of boycotting with the opera- 
 tions of the League branches was discussed by Sir Charles Russell in a later 
 portion of his speech. 
 
 Another of the popular appeals was that of date 5th November, 1879, signed 
 by Mr. Parnell and his fellow-officials, and addressed to the tenant-farmers 
 as a class, pointing out to them the circumstances — such as American com- 
 petition — under which the purchase of their farms was becoming easier for 
 them. One of the most remarkable of these manifestoes of the League was 
 that specially addressed to the occupiers of that very province of Ulster 
 between which and the South and West there have been such persistent 
 attempts to sow discord. This Land League document, read out by Mr. 
 Arthur Russell, spoke of the Ulster people as men who once upon a time had 
 led the van of Irish progress; it invited the Ulster people, as "countrymen 
 and brothers," to work for the common good of Ireland ; it repelled the 
 charges of sectarian and religious bigotry which in some quarters had been 
 made against the Catholic west and south ; it challenged proof of a single 
 instance of religious jealousy on the part of the Catholic community ; and in 
 proof of freedom from all such unworthy feeling, it drew the attention of the 
 Ulster men to the fact that in the west and south of Ireland Catholic candidates 
 for representative office who were indifferent to the popular cause were passed 
 over for Protestants who were friends to it. 
 
198 Thursday] Diary of [April 4. 
 
 Was this League, with its "free and open programme," and its public 
 appeals, "a criminal conspiracy?" Sir Charles Russell asked. If it was, it 
 was unlike any other criminal conspiracy he had ever heard of. Catholic 
 bishops and priests — intimately acquainted with the people — supported this 
 new League from the very first ; and, with very few exceptions, the body of 
 the episcopate and clergy joined it after the rejection of the Compensation for 
 Disturbance Bill. As to crimes incidental to the movement, why, even in 
 England itself no great popular movement had ever taken place — and he 
 histanced Free Trade, and the workmen's movement for right of free com- 
 bination — without " the incidents of disturbance and crime." If popular 
 leaders, in Ireland or anywhere else, were to be deterred by the prospect of 
 incidental violence from efforts after social amelioration, there would be no 
 such thing as social amelioration at all ; there would be "no crusades against 
 despotism." Sir Charles Russell illustrated this position by reference to Sir 
 James Macintosh's criticism on Burke. As for the people who, in Ireland or 
 America, contributed to the funds of the League, or otherwise befriended the 
 movement, Mr. Parnell simply proceeded upon the principle of excluding 
 no one, of refusing the help of no one, who freely and honestly offered his 
 support. \Yhen invoking popular aid, "was Mr. Parnell to ask for a cpj-J-ii- 
 ficate of previous political conduct " from every one who responded tio his 
 invitation ? ^Yas he to refuse contributions without such ceitificate ? Diid the 
 Irish landlords refuse the American dollars sent to rack-rented peasanvts by 
 their children and relations in America ? r 
 
 You have heard, said Sir Charles Russell, you have heard from the sipy Le 
 Caron some statements about an unconstitutional movement of Irilsh in 
 America ; but how puny is that movement in comparison with that of gvhich 
 Mr. Parnell has been the head. "It is not always that the merits of a Ir^an 
 are recognized in the day in which he lives. The motives ai-e misconstruev.'"' : 
 the aims are misrepresented ; and within the last few days we have had a 
 notable example of what one may call the posthumous gratitude of a nation, 
 when by the grave of one of the greatest men of this generation has ascended 
 the loudest and the shrillest ' keen ' of mourning from the men who spent 
 their lives in denouncing the whole character, in vilifying the motives, and 
 doing all they could — but puny were their efforts — to bring disgrace and 
 infamy upon his head.". And Sir Charles went on to say that he had no doubt 
 the day would come — was coming rapidly — when j\Ir. Parnell would be 
 recognized as a statesman who in striving for the good of Ireland had 
 rendered "true and loyal service to England." The passage was one of the 
 most eloquent in the whole of to-day's delivery, and the style of the delivery 
 was worthy of the substance. 
 
 Returning for a few moments to the public appeals and manifestoes of the 
 National Leaguers, Sir Charles Russell quoted the League programme of 
 April, 1S80, offering to the landlords terms of purchase, which, Sir Charles 
 Russell declared, they would only be too glad to accept now if they had 
 the chance. The landlords then missed an opportunity, said Sir Charles, 
 which they were not likely to get again ; and he drew attention to the fact 
 that, though the other leaders of the League appended their signatures to the 
 document, Mr. Davitt withheld his. Mr. Davitt, Sir Charles explained, 
 thought the terms offered to the landlords were too favourable, and events 
 had proved that INIr. Davitt was right. How comes it, exclaimed Sir Charles 
 Russell, raising his voice to its highest pitch, and turning round to where the 
 Attorney-General sat, "How comes it that such documents have not been 
 presented before your lordships, if this case is to be fairly presented in a 
 broad, in a just, and in a statesmanlike fashion ? How is it that all these 
 documents come, I think I may say, as a revelation upon your lordships? 
 My lords, nothing but blind animosity, the judgments of men distorted by 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission, [April 4. 199 
 
 prejudice, carried away by a desire and impulse to blacken the characters of 
 political opponents, can account for the way in which the Attorney-General 
 has been imperfectly instructed in presenting this case. I think it is a grave 
 matter. I must say it is a grave scandal." The court rang with Sir Charles 
 Russell's impassioned voice, as he denounced this " grave scandal." 
 
 Next followed the passages about boycotting. Those who heard them will 
 long remember them. "Boycotting?" Then a pause — during which Sir 
 Charles takes out his snuff-coloured pocket-handkerchief. "Boycotting?" 
 He drops his voice. " My lords — let us clear our minds of cant." "Boy- 
 cotting has existed in all ages and countries." What is it? Why, a 
 " focussing of the opinion of the community in condemnation of the conduct 
 of some members of that community." It may be criminal, or justifiable, 
 according to its methods of working. " Is there no boycotting at the Bar? " 
 "No boycotting in the Church?" "No boycotting in politics? or in trade? 
 What is meant by sending a man to Coventry? " 
 
 Then he instanced the successful boycott of a Cape governor — refusal to 
 sell, refusal to supply him with horses — until his Excellency yielded to the 
 colonists' demand that a convict ship about to land her cargo of criniinal off- 
 scourings should be ordered to make off with it elsewhither. This was a 
 justifiable boycott ; the only sort of boycott which Sir Charles would condemn, 
 was the boycott of intimidation and violence. And as to the League's 
 denunciation of land-grabbing and boycotting of land-grabbers, why land- 
 grabbing was simply one of the forms of landlord oppression against which the 
 tenants combined. The combination must either denounce grabbing or cease 
 to exist. 
 
 To show from another point of view what the real character of the Land 
 League was, Sir Charles Russell quoted denunciations which the Irish 
 Republican Brotherhood launched against Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, and other 
 members of the open and constitutional body, the Land League. Sir Charles 
 Russell concluded this part of his address — the foundation of the Land League 
 — by declaring emphatically that, as far as the case had already gone, there 
 had been produced against the accused not a single proof of complicity in crime 
 which, if the trial were an ordinary criminal one, would justify their lordships in 
 submitting the matter to a jury. It is a most remarkable and striking fact, 
 continued Sir Charles, that every informer who has sworn to participation with 
 leaguers in the commission of crime was himself a member of some secret 
 society. 
 
 The Attorney-General, exclaimed Sir Charles, undertook to prove that sums 
 of thirty, forty, fifty pounds were paid down by Mr. Biggar, INIr. Brennan, and 
 other officers of the League, to the actual perpetrators of crimes. Where was 
 the proof? Sir Charles asked. Where was the Attorney-General's authority 
 for that statement ? ' ' Who was the informer, who the convict, who told that 
 lie ? " But then the Attorney-General explained that he did not mean to say 
 that Mr. Biggar and the others were directly cognisant of crimes committed, 
 or about to be committed. "What a contemptible case, what a wretched 
 thing of shreds and patches has the Attorney- General presented to your lord- 
 ships. Will no explanation be given of these statements? No apology be 
 made for them? They are directed against his colleagues in Parhament, 
 whose reputation is as dear to them as the Attorney-General's is to him. Such 
 statements should not be made recklessly by any member of the Bar, whether 
 he be the highest or the lowest." The passages summarized in the preceding 
 sentences were delivered in Sir Charles Russell's most emphatic style. He 
 pointed to where The Tijties counsel sat. He turned round to the Attorney- 
 General, who leaning back in his seat, next bent forward, leant back again, and 
 finally scribbled something with his quill. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell now came to the next division of his subject — the 
 
200 Tuesday] Diary of [April g. 
 
 League's work. The work of the League, said Sir Charles, was twofold — 
 relief and organization. The League spent ^^50,000 in relief during the 
 famine of eight or nine years ago. Mr. Davitt was then the head of the 
 League. In 1881 Mr. Davitt went to America. On his return he issued a 
 circular, which was distributed throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. 
 In that circular, while exhorting the tenants to stand firm, he urged them to 
 abstain from violence, he characterized threatening letters as being " stupidly 
 unnecessary" and "criminal," he declared that persons resorting to such 
 means of influencing landlords were unworthy of League membership, and he 
 expressed his inability to believe that members of the League could possibly 
 be identified with the crimes reported from all quarters of Ireland. 
 
 Now, exclaimed Sir Charles Russell, though this League circular was dis- 
 tributed all over Ireland, the Attorney-General never referred to it. On the 
 contrary, the Attorney-General had said that none of the League leaders had 
 denounced outrages. To illustrate his position that the Land League was an 
 organization of order and peace, Sir Charles Russell showed how disturbance 
 and crime followed its suppression. The disturbing effect of the No- Rent 
 Manifesto was as nothing in comparison with that produced by the imprison- 
 ment of the trusted leaders of the people. If the No-Rent Manifesto was "an 
 unconstitutional blow," it was dealt against "an unconstitutional blow." 
 But, in fact, said Sir Charles, considering what the occupation of land meant 
 to an Irish peasant, "I do not believe that any organization could prevent the 
 payment of rent, if the people had it to pay," 
 
 The work of the League, said Sir Charles Russell, has been described by 
 accusers as criminal ; but if that is the correct account, is it not strange that in 
 an organization extending over most of Ireland, and with every facility for 
 conducting its search, The Times has been able to find only one League letter 
 purporting to connect, directly, the Land League organization with crime — 
 the letter of a local official, who, however, is not in the land of the living? 
 Then Sir Charles went on to describe, somewhat humorously— though still in 
 his serious vein— how the Royal Irish Constabulary searched over the length 
 and breadth of the land for incriminatory documents, and found nothing 
 really relevant to the point at issue before their lordships. Sir Charles Russell 
 concluded with a statement of the Land League objections to the Land Bill of 
 1 88 1, and a description of the League's policy of " test cases" before the Land 
 Commission, as a method of saving the tenants the heavy costs involved in 
 an application to the Courts, and of saving both tenants and Courts much 
 valuable time. 
 
 SIXTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 April 9. 
 
 In spite of the attractions of Sir Charles Russell's eloquence, the attend- 
 ance in court to-day, when their lordships entered at half-past ten 
 o'clock, was unusually small. Sir Charles Russell resumed his speech with a 
 summar}^ of what had gone before. He had endeavoured to show that the 
 action of the Irish Parliamentary leaders had been entirely constitutional, 
 entirely influenced by the desire for social peace and improvement. That had 
 been the great ambition of the Land League. But besides the Land League 
 usually known by that name, there was a smaller body, the Ladies' Land 
 League, formed shortly before the suppression, in 1881, of the larger body, 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [April 9. 201 
 
 and dissolved, by itself, in August, 1882, soon after Mr. Parnell's release from 
 Kilmainham. 
 
 But for a particular observation of the Attorney-General's, Sir Charles 
 would have passed over the subject of the Ladies' Land League without any 
 notice whatever. This Sir Charles said with a tone of downright contempt in 
 his voice at the treatment which the League had received in Sir Richard's 
 opening speech. Sir Charles took a single illustration, namely, the Attorney- 
 General's words about Miss Reynolds, ' ' whose career will be traced, whose 
 course through the country would be traced by the deeds which followed her 
 agitation." Having read out these words, Sir Charles Russell paused ; he 
 gazed for a moment at Sir Richard Webster, and then looked at the judges. 
 Here, he said, we have a picture of a lady wading through blood, leaving 
 bloody footsteps behind her. "Where," he exclaimed almost fiercely, "where, 
 I ask, is the proof of all this to be found ? Where is the justification for this 
 statement ? Not one iota of evidence have we had in proof of this imputation 
 made in the Attorney-General's statement." With this expression of flat 
 contradiction and challenge, Sir Charles Russell dismissed contemptuously 
 this branch of the Attorney-General's statement, and passed on to the 
 Kilmainham episode of the Parnell movement, and Captain O'Shea's rela,tions 
 with Mr. Parnell and others. 
 
 Mr. Parnell and his colleagues, said Sir Charles, do not deny that they 
 advised the tenants to combine; do not deny that they did not "differen- 
 tiate " between poor tenants and tenants who were well off. Their hope was 
 that the well-to-do and strong would combine for the sake of the poor and the 
 weak. WTien the Arrears Bill was first discussed, Mr. Parnell had predicted 
 that if some such measure was not passed disturbances would ensue among 
 the poorer tenants. As a matter of fact, the Government in 1882 followed the 
 -advice of Mr. Parnell and passed an Arrears Bill — they were guided by the 
 man whom his enemies regarded as an arch-conspirator, and more or less 
 indirect dabbler in crime. But before Mr. Parnell's advice was adoptee? the 
 state of Ireland was perilous in the extreme. One thousand men, many of 
 them popular leaders, were in prison as suspects. There was a growing dread, 
 shared by Mr. Parnell, who also was in gaol, that a great outburst of crime 
 might take place. Members of the Government were feeling alarmed. And 
 .at last Captain O'Shea appeared as intermediary between them and jMr. 
 Parnell. Sir Charles gave briefly the drift of the conversations between j Mr. 
 Parnell and Captain O'Shea, and of Mr. Parnell's earnest advice — "Drop 
 coercion, pass an Arrears Bill, and don't trouble about our release, for that 
 will come in good time." Captain O'Shea, said Sir Charles, was mistaken 
 when he said that Mr. Parnell requested that some of his fellow-prisoners 
 should be detained for a little while after his own release. Mr. Parnell's own 
 account of the transaction differed from Captain O'Shea's. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell next referred to Captain O'Shea's assurance as to the frame 
 of mind in which he found Mr. Parnell — a state of mind in which rancour had no 
 part, but only an earnest desire for the peaceful settlement of the land question. 
 At last, in the early part of May, 1882, Mr. Parnell was released. IMr. Davitt 
 was released a few days later. Mr. Parnell's recommendations had, as already 
 said, been accepted by the Government. The substitution of Lord Spencer 
 and Lord F. Cavendish for Lord Cowper and Mr. Forster seenied to be the 
 triumph of the constitutional policy of the Irish leaders. Lord Spencer sjid 
 Lord F. Cavendish "went to Ireland bearing the olive branch in their hands, 
 1;he first time it had been borne since there were Lord-Lieutenants in Ireland." 
 " They were received with acclamations." " There was no hollow pretence " 
 in the popular joy. The Irish people fully "recognized" the nature of the 
 change that was taking place. Then came the Phoenix Park murders. " The 
 -most malignant enemy of Ireland could not have struck a more malignant 
 
202 Tuesday] Diary of [April g, 
 
 blow." And these men, Mr. Parnell and his colleagues, whose policy was at 
 last becoming victorious, had to bear the " hardship " of accusations against 
 them of complicity in a foul and dastardly crime; the hardship of "public 
 obloquy and opprobrium as hypocrites when they raised their voices in con- 
 demnation of those dastardly deeds." His contrast between the Parnellite 
 position before the crime and after it — between the seemingly certain fulfil- 
 ment of Mr. Parnell's policy of conciliation, and the shattering of his hopes 
 by the atrocious and stupid murders of Phoenix Park — was effective in the 
 extreme. 
 
 Recalling how Mr. Parnell, his health suffering from the shock, almost 
 " yielded to despair," and to a determination to retire from politics. Sir Charles 
 Russell came to the Phoenix Park manifesto, signed by Mr. Parnell and 
 others. The manifesto was read out by Mr. Reid. " It is said," con- 
 tinued Sir Charles, that Mr. Parnell "signed this manifesto unwillingly. 
 What authority has the Attorney-General for that statement ? How does 
 the Attorney-General know it ? " And, then, Sir Charles Russell went on 
 to pay some tribute of respect and admiration for the attitude which the 
 English Press (with one exception) preserved during the excitement of the 
 Phoenix Park murders. To the spirit of justice shown by the English Press 
 towaxds ]Mr. Parnell and his colleagues at that critical time, it was, Sir Charles 
 thou£,ht, due that the public mind was not dangerously excited against the Irish 
 party. Sir Charles concluded his remarks on this period — the period between 
 the £;uppression of the Land League and the rise of the National League — by 
 showing how the passing of the Arrears Bill was followed by a large diminution 
 in the number of the worst species of crimes. 
 
 The next part of Sir Charles Russell's speech dealt with the National 
 League, founded in October, 1882, the rules and constitution of which were 
 now read out in com't. National self-government, extension of the fran- 
 chise (Parliamentary and municipal), and the development of Irish agriculture 
 and ^ industry, — these were the main objects of the National League. The 
 land question was to be settled by peasant proprietorship — the peasants to buy 
 theiii: holdings at a fair price, by the help of a State loan, repayable with 
 interest in sixty- three years. The National League programme also in 
 eluded popular representation on the Irish Boards, the abolition of the Lord 
 Lientenantship, the improvement of labourers' dwellings, Scc.\ 
 
 Bat the Irish people, in whose interests all this was to be accomplished, were 
 cViemselves insufficiently represented. Up to 1885 the proportion of Irish voters 
 to the Irish population was ludicrously small as contrasted with the state of the 
 popular representation in England. Sir Charles Russell quoted some striking 
 figures in illustration of this. He had an object in all this. It had been said 
 that the Irish people were terrorized by a small minority — the Nationalists, of 
 whon. the Parnellite party were the leaders. Sir Charles now showed, from 
 the figures of the general election of 1885, how the Irish people, having 
 attained to full and free Parliamentary power and responsibihty, chose as their 
 representatives, by tremendous majorities of thousands against hundreds, those 
 same Parnellite tyrants. The Irish elections of 1885 were the expression of the 
 free opinion of the majority of the Irish people. Does this, exclaimed Sir 
 Charles Russell, afford the clue to Lord Carnarvon's policy of conciliation; 
 and to the policy of a greater man than Lord Carnarvon? 
 
 ■The humaner and juster policy began in 1S81 with land legislation, which, 
 if carried out in full, would have changed the course of Irish history ; it would 
 have made the political question all the more easy of solution. As it was, the 
 Irish party had done great service to their countr}^ It is, exclaimed Sir 
 Charles, because of their energetic service for Ireland's good that they are 
 arraigned before your lordships. They may have done foolish things ; they may 
 have not always done the right thing at the moment, but they have vindicated 
 
Tuesday] the Parncll Commission. [April 9. 203 
 
 themselves before the world. And to show how their conduct in the land 
 agitation had been justified, he quoted the average annual reductions granted 
 by the Land Courts since 1 88 1— showing how the tremendous reduction in 
 1886-7 was necessitated by a fall in agricultural prices. Even good landlords, 
 said Sir Charles, quoting figures, have been forced to give these great reductions 
 — what of the bad ones ? 
 
 The next topic was the Attorney-General's evidence connecting the perpe- 
 tration of crime, and the payment of crime, with the League. The Attorney- 
 General had named sixty-one persons (here Sir Charles read out the list) who 
 had been " named " or denounced by the League, and who in consequence of 
 that denunciation had been, according to Sir Richard Webster, subjected to in- 
 timidation and outrage of various sorts. But, said Sir Charles, in all the sixty- 
 one, not one single case has been proved to be an instance of such connection. 
 Sir Charles argued, generally, that only a sequence had been proved, not a 
 consequence ; that, in short, the Attorney- General's argument had been " after 
 this, therefore, because of this." But there was not a single proof of the rela- 
 tionship of cause and effect. 
 
 Sir Charles intimated that he would call witnesses to disprove the Attorney- 
 General's case — to prove that the League exercised a pacifying, moderating^ 
 effect on the tenants. Meanwhile he rapidly surveyed the evidence given by 
 such witnesses as Captains Plunkett and Slack. The former, when pressed in 
 cross-examination to give his reasons for saddhng the League with the respon- 
 sibility for crime, could give none except his personal suspicions, and hearsay. 
 Captain Plunkett argued that because the League was strong in this, that, or 
 the other district, therefore crime was frequent ; and that crime was frequent in 
 the district because the League was strong. Considering that all Governments 
 had been hostile to the League, was it not marvellous, Sir Charles asked, that 
 they had never been able to get at incriminating details of the kind given by 
 the informer Colman to Captain Plunkett ? It is also a curious fact, continued 
 Sir Charles, that the informers by whom Captain Plunkett and others were 
 guided were in all cases members of secret societies. 
 
 As for Captain Slack, continued Sir Charles, his unrivalled experience ex- 
 tended over eight counties, yet, as evidence establishing a causal relationship 
 between the League and crime, his evidence was " trumpery in the highest 
 degree " ; it was " a mere rubbishy collection " of stories. Sir Charles further 
 illustrated his position by somewhat detailed references to the Attorney- 
 General's evidence for Cork, Kerry, Mayo, Galway, Clare. The Hegarty 
 boycott was bad, said Sir Charles — he would not defend it ; but he showed that 
 the president of the League branch was opposed to it, and held that, fi-om the 
 circumstances of the case, the Hegarty boycott would have happened if the 
 League had never existed. More crimes of violence, including murder, had 
 taken place in Galway than in any other county ; but Galway has been in a 
 state of exceptional distress. Confining himself to murders, Sir Charles him- 
 self selected one case, that of Luke Dillon. He pointed out that the man 
 had been in the habit of carrying large sums of money with him, and that, on 
 the other hand, Sir Richard Webster had not produced a tittle of evidence to 
 connect the man's fate with the action of the League. As for the murder 
 of Lord Mountmorres, Sir Charles intimated that he would produce witnesses 
 who would show what manner of life he had led. The murder, said Sir 
 Charles, was due to conduct on the part of Lord Mountmorres " over which 
 I would willingl}) draw the veil ; " it had nothing to do with agrarian or League 
 disputes. In not a single case, repeated Sir Charles, has murder or complicity 
 in it been brought home to the League, or to any single one of the persons 
 who are charged. And he instanced the numerous cases in which the Attorney- 
 General's own witnesses expressed their belief that the League had had nothing 
 whatever to do with the crimes which it was sought to bring home to them. 
 
204 Wednesday] Diary of [April lo. 
 
 SIXTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 April io. 
 
 The Curtin case and the Fitzmaurice case were the two chief instances which 
 Sir Charles Russell selected to-day in his review of the evidence by which the 
 Attorney-General sought to make the Land and National Leagues responsible 
 for murder and outrage. Now, asked Sir Charles Russell, what is the true 
 story of this sad case of the Curtins ? Why, Sir Charles exclaimed, "the 
 Curtin murder is not even included in the official police records of agrarian 
 crime. If I am wrong, correct me," remarked Sir Charles Russell, turning 
 round to the Attorney-General. But Sir Charles Russell proceeded on his way 
 uncontradicted. The murder of Mr. Curtin had nothing whatever to do with 
 the agrarian question, said Sir Charles. Mr. Curtin had no quarrel with the 
 League. He was even a vice-president of the League. All that was known 
 about the Curtin tragedy was, said Sir Charles Russell, the following : On one 
 occasion a gang of moonlighters visited Mr. Curtin's house for arms. In 
 November, 1885, the visit was repeated — probably by the same gang. Sir 
 Charles thought young ]Mr. Curtin was the first to begin firing. He shot one 
 of the moonlighters, who fired in return, killing Mr. Curtin, the father. Now, 
 continued Sir Charles Russell, the president of the local branch of the League 
 endeavoured to protect the Curtin family from the cruel boycott to which they 
 were subjected. ]Mr. Davitt went from Dublin on the same errand. Mr. 
 O'Connor, i\I.P., did likewise; and on the Sunday following the murder, the 
 Rev. Father Murphy, a local priest, denounced the crime from the altar. And 
 all the local branches of the League round about passed strong resolutions in 
 denunciation of it. Such, said Sir Charles Russell, is the sum and substance 
 of the Curtin story. 
 
 Coming to the Fitzmaurice story, Sir Charles Russell maintained that it 
 afforded no more evidence of complicity on the part of the League than the 
 Curtin story. James Fitzmaurice, the victim, had grabbed land from which his 
 brother was evicted. This brother's name was Edmund. And Edmund, being 
 homeless, found refuge in the house of a friend named Costelloe. After that 
 Costelloe was " processed " by the land agent, Mr. Hussey — not, as the people 
 in the neighbourhood believed, for non-payment of rent, but because he had 
 shown some humanity to a sufferer. Sir Charles contended that the circum- 
 stances of that agrarian dispute were precisely of the kind to inflame the 
 tenantry against the person whom they held responsible for them, namely, the 
 landgrabber James Fitzmaurice. 
 
 Sir Charles next denied that the Land League paid for the defence of the 
 prisoners accused of the murder ; he pointed out that neither of the two, Hayes 
 and Moriarty, who were hanged for this murder, was a leaguer ; and that some 
 of the witnesses attributed the murder, not to League action, but to family dis- 
 putes. In describing the treatment of Costelloe, Sir Charles took the oppor- 
 tunity of showing what a heinous offence it was, in the eyes of landlords and 
 agents, for a tenant to assist his evicted neighbour. He narrated the story of a 
 child of ten years of age, to whom a woman had twice refused shelter (from 
 fear of the landlord), and who next morning was found dead on her doorstep. 
 
 I have now gone over ten years' history of four counties, said Sir Charles 
 Russell, and have shown that distress and crime have been interconnected. 
 He cited, finally, the example of the district between Woodford and Loughrea, 
 the most fruitful of crime in Ireland ; and why the most fruitful ? Sir Charles 
 answered this by referring first to Chief Baron Palles's remark to the effect 
 that Lord Clanricarde took a different view of right and duty to that enter- 
 tained by the rest of mankind ; and next to the Chief Secretary's refusal to 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [April lo. 205 
 
 give Lord Clanricarde the military and police assistance to which he was 
 entitled by the letter of the law. 
 
 Sir Charles next came to the evidence against the accused members, and the 
 five others who were not members, namely, Messrs Sheridan, Byrne, Boyton, 
 Brennan, and Egan. Of the sixty-five accused members Sir Charles first 
 named twenty-eight, and asked their lordships whether they had in their minds 
 any recollection of a single tittle of proof against them. Reading some more 
 names, Sir Charles Russell declared that if this were an ordinary criminal trial 
 the so-called evidence against these men would be regarded with utter con- 
 tempt. Making a passing reference to Mr. Redmond's offence, he showed that 
 it consisted in distribution of No-Rent Manifesto circulars. (In a later part of 
 his speech. Sir Charles Russell reminded their lordships that "No-Rent " never 
 was a part of the Land League policy ; and that the manifesto was meant as a 
 temporary expedient.) Much of the Attorney-General's case, continued Sir 
 Charles Russell, consisted in the reading of speeches, some good, some bad, 
 some indifferent, some — but proportionally a very small number — highly con- 
 demnable. But, said Sir Charles Russell, of the sixty-five members, there are 
 thirty against whom no speeches whatever have been put in. Of the speeches 
 that had been put in, he could not recall one which would be judicially re- 
 garded as an incentive to outrage. There were " Scrab Nally's " speeches. 
 *' Scrab " was not a member of Parliament. " Scrab," Sir Charles exclaimed, 
 after one of his little pauses, "yes, Tke Times has made a hero of Scrab, and 
 your lordships will learn by-and-by what Scrab's true position was." " Doctor" 
 Tully was another intemperate orator and non-Parliamentary personage, of 
 whom The Times had made much. That man's speeches, Sir Charles observed, 
 were like "Scrab's," capable of an evil interpretation ; " but he did not know of 
 any offence which had been charged against Tully, except the delivery of a 
 foolish speech. The Times, said Sir Charles Russell, has put in four hundred 
 speeches in all ; and out of these four hundred, only two speeches were 
 delivered during the period when crime was at its worst — namely, from 
 October, 1 88 1, to the end of 1882 — and of the two, only one was an Irish 
 member's. 
 
 Having made that point about the two speeches, or one speech. Sir Charles 
 proceeded to give a rapid survey of the Attorney-General's evidence against 
 the five non-members already named. And first of Sheridan. He was 
 accused, as a Land Leaguer, of having organized outrages in Western Ireland. 
 " Give me one item of proof," exclaimed Sir Charles. " I say there is none." 
 It is insinuated that Mr. Parnell in Kilmainham thought that Sheridan, who 
 had got up outrages, could be used to put them down. I say, again, repeated 
 Sir Charles, that for this statement there is "not an item of proof." The 
 proof, derived from an informer's story, that bayonets and other arms were 
 found in a smithy which Sheridan sometimes visited. Sir Charles dismissed 
 with contempt. I should like to know the grounds, remarked Sir Charles, on 
 which the informer Delaney declared that Sheridan was an Invincible. And 
 he made a brief comment, significant more perhaps in its tone than in its 
 substance, of the contrast between Delaney's directness of statement in his 
 examination-in-chief — statements as of facts within his own knowledge — and 
 his collapse under cross-examination. Apart from Delaney's story, there 
 was, Sir Charles Russell said, no evidence that Mr. Sheridan had ever had 
 anything to do with crime. As to Byrne, Sir Charles said that more would 
 have to be said about him in relation to Mr. Parnell. But meanwhile he 
 would observe that the accusations against Byrne were based on statements 
 said to have been made by him in America, and upon the dock clerk Mul- 
 queeny's story about knives found in Byrne's office in Westminster. 
 
 There was "no shadow" of evidence that Boyton was implicated in crime. 
 As for Le Caron's story about Egan's story of Brennan's story about Mr. 
 
2o6 Wednesday] Diary of [April lo. 
 
 Sexton, why Mr. Sexton would have something to say in the witness-box. 
 And Sir Charles passed on to the evidence against Mr. Egan, which, he said, 
 rested on the story of the messenger or clerk, of the Dul^lin Land League office, 
 named Farragher, who said that he carried letters from Egan to MuUett, but 
 who was " vague in his dates." The men who knew Egan best will not fear 
 to answer for him before your lordships, said Sir Charles Russell ; and he 
 remarked that the American Government, at all events, thought sufficiently 
 highly of him to appoint him its Minister in Chili. Had it not been for the 
 " rotten foundation " of TAe Tillies' letters, exclaimed Sir Charles Russell 
 in a tone of mingled anger and contempt, there would have been no case against 
 Mr. Parnell and Mr. Egan. 
 
 Of Mr. Davitt, Sir Charles said that he would at the proper time speak for 
 himself. But Sir Charles observed that ^Nlr. Davitt had always openly avowed 
 what he had done, and he spoke of his " straightforward," " manly " conduct 
 in the cause which he believed to be just. Mr. Davitt has shown " enormous 
 moral courage," said Sir Charles ; he separated himself from the Fenian body 
 in order to ioitiate constitutional methods, and he did it at the risk of his life. 
 
 As for Mr. J. O'Kelly, jNI.P., he will tell you himself, continued Sir Charles 
 Russell, how he separated himself from the Fenian organization. With the 
 exception of the fact that he occupied a high position in the Fenian Brother- 
 hood, " there is not one tittle of evidence against him." As for Mr. E. 
 Harrington, M.P., " I have seen nothing in his paper, The Ke7-ry Sentinel, of 
 which he need feel ashamed." Paying next a high tribute to Mr. Dillon's 
 integrity and honesty. Sir Charles remarked, with a somewhat comically help- 
 less gesture, " I don't know what is the evidence against him." As for the 
 following five members, JMr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Lane, Mr. Deasy, Mr. P. 
 O'Hea, and Mr. Gilhooly, the evidence against them was " childish and 
 ridiculous." 
 
 Next he came to the charge against Dr. Kenny, M.P. There, Sir Charles 
 said, was the only fact that in any w^ay went to show that the League's central 
 office in Dublin was implicated, directly or indii-ectly, wdth crime, or with any 
 payments, real or supposed, in connection with crime. Sir Charles was 
 referring to the letter which Horan, secretary of the Castleisland branch of the 
 Land League, wrote to Dr. Kenny, requesting money for men who had been 
 hurt in some illegal adventure. Dr. Kenny did send a cheque, " presumably 
 in answer to that letter." Sir Charles Russell w^ould not mitigate the importance 
 •^of that letter ; but, he said, it must be remembered that the cheque was sent 
 when the League was in an extremely disorganized condition ; and he added 
 that Mr. Kenny himself and Mr. Sexton and Arthur O'Connor would go into 
 the witness-box and tell their lordships that to their knowledge no League 
 money was ever paid for the commission of crime .or for the shielding of 
 persons engaged in it. The very terms of the application to Dr. Kenny, said 
 Sir Charles Russell, implied that this was the case, otherwise the money would 
 have been asked for " as a matter of course." Mr. Biggar, said Sir Charles 
 Russell, appears for himself. He will tell your lordships how and why, like 
 Mr. Egan, he was expelled from the Fenian Brotherhood. Mr. T. M. Healy, 
 .also, would appear in person. " No man is better qualified to defend himself." 
 
 And now Sir Charles came to one of the most effective passages in his 
 speech — his endorsement of Mr. John Morley's charge of "infamy" against 
 The Times. It came about in his reference to The Tillies' evidence against 
 Mr. Redmond. "What is the evidence?" Sir Charles said, dropping his 
 voice, and turning round to Mr. Asquith. At this expression of perplexity, 
 Sir Charles's audience — the "public" portion of it at all events — laughed. 
 Then he turned round again, slowly, facing the judges. " I have no notion 
 what the evidence is," said he, with a shake of his head. And then, all of a 
 .sudden he dropped, so to speak, upon the Manchester incident. Mr. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Comniission. [April lo. 207 
 
 Redmond, when on his way to a meeting at Manchester, heard the news of 
 the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish. He announced it at the meeting. 
 He expressed his horror of it, and in his dismay at the foul deed he caused the 
 meeting to be adjourned. Next morning T/ie Times declared that, though Mr. 
 Redmond had expressed his feelings about the murder of Lord F. Cavendish, 
 he did not say a word about the murder of IMr. Burke. But Mr. Redmond 
 knew nothing about Mr, Burke's death. The terrible news came upon him by 
 surprise, and he was under the impression that Lord Frederick was the only 
 victim. This explanation Mr. Redmond forwarded without delay to The 
 Times. The Times refused to insert it. Then Mr. Redmond made the 
 explanation in the House of Commons. It was reported in the Parliamentary 
 columns of the morning papers. But from The Times Parliamentary report 
 the explanation was " deliberately omitted." 
 
 Here Sir Charles Russell stopped. He gazed for a moment or two at the 
 spot where sat the manager of The Times. He began to say something. He 
 stammered. One could hear a pin fall in the silence. But controlling himself, 
 he uttered in a low voice the words which a distinguished statesman had made 
 current — "nothing short of infamous." 
 
 After this judgment upon the conduct of The Times, Sir Charles Russell 
 briefly alluded to the charges against Mr. Matt. Harris, Mr. T. Harrington, 
 and Mr. T. D. Sullivan. As for the celebrated "partridge speech" of Mr. 
 Harris, Mr. Harris himself, at the conclusion of his meeting, apologized for the 
 words he used and explained what he really meant by them. It was untrue to 
 say that Mr. Parnell was on the platform when Mr. Harris spoke. Then, 
 turning to Mr. Harrington's case and the story told about him by the informer 
 O'Connor, Sir Charles intimated that he would like to put the informer into the 
 "box again, so as to learn from him all the circumstances under which he con- 
 fessed to the priest that his evidence in Court was a lie. Sir Charles read out 
 the letter in which O'Connor told his brother that he " expected to make a few 
 pounds over the transaction" ; but that he could not unless he swore "queer 
 things." I am afraid, said Sir Charles, that a good many persons have been 
 making a few pounds out of The Times in that way. Sir Charles Russell 
 then spoke about Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., and of the universal respect in 
 which he is held in Ireland. He himself, said Sir Charles, will describe to 
 your lordshijDS the career of his paper, The Nation, which opposed Fenianism, 
 and which, in consequence, was abused by The Irishman, the paper belonging 
 to " that wretched man Pigott " (another of those who made a few pounds by 
 The Times). Against Mr. Sullivan, said Sir Charles Russell, there is "not a 
 single tittle of evidence from beginning to end." 
 
 Having thus rapidly surveyed the charges against the Irish members. Sir 
 Charles Russell addressed himself to the American section of his speech. In 
 two or three introductory passages of great eloquence and pathos. Sir Charles 
 dwelt upon the forced emigration of the Irish people, and of the now declining 
 feeling of hatred of the American Irish against this country, as the fruit of 
 " the misunderstanding, misgovernment, misrule of the past." Of the sixty or 
 seventy millions of people in the States fifteen millions were of the Irish race. 
 And the secret of their old feeling of bitterness might be understood from one 
 ■of the first sights that met a stranger's eye as he landed on American soil. 
 
 "On the hill-side above New York," said Sir Charles Russell, " the emigrant's attention is 
 drawn to a collection of huts, as miserable as any to be seen in Galway or Mayo. What are 
 they? Ayhat is their history ? What purpose have they served ? My lords, they have served 
 as squatting refuges for the wretched creatures who have been landed on the hospitable shores 
 — for they have been hospitable shores to the Irish race — of America, but who, without the 
 means to eke_ out their existence, have been compelled to seek refuge, until thejr could find 
 ■employment, in these wretched homes." 
 
 There survive to this day, said Sir Charles, sad stories of the fate of Irish 
 
2o8 Wednesday] Diary of [April lo. 
 
 emigrants in the New York hospitals, some wards of which were named 
 after the landlords whose evicted tenants the patients had been — named after 
 them in memory of the misery and the deaths of which these wards had been 
 the scene. 
 
 In a passing allusion to the careers of the American Irish, Sir Charles quoted 
 the declaration of the illustrious General Sheridan, of the Secession War, to 
 the effect that if he lived in Ireland he would be a Fenian. The old spirit of 
 the American Irish was evidenced in the fact that the American Fenian 
 organization once upon a time counted two hundred and thirty thousand men. 
 That has dwindled down to the small fraction of the Clan-na-Gael, and, said 
 Sir Charles Russell, it is the boast of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt that they 
 have done this. Sir Charles then proceeded to relate how Mr. Davitt, when 
 in prison, thought out his scheme of substituting constitutional agitation for 
 violence, and how he preached his ideas in America in 1878, after his release 
 from prison. Then Mr. Asquith read the declaration in w^hich jNIr. Pamell, 
 previous to his first American journey, impressed upon his Irish fellow- 
 countrymen the truth that their hope lay in co-operation with the English 
 democracy, the English people. What is the central idea of this declaration ? 
 asked Sir Charles, after Mr. Asquith had done with his reading. Is it not a 
 disclaimer of recourse to force ? Is it not that between the peoples of England 
 and Ireland there never has been enmity, but that it is English Governments 
 that have been responsible for misrule ? Mr. Parnell's policy, exclaimed Sir 
 Charles, has borne fruit ; the English people and the Irish people have been 
 drawn together. 
 
 In America, said Sir Charles, Mr. Parnell delivered sixty speeches, and of 
 these sixty T/ze Times has cited only one, the famous "last link" speech. 
 Yet, said Sir Charles, that expression does not occur in the reports of the news- 
 papers of Cincinnati, where the speech was delivered. Mr. Parnell believes 
 The World misreported him. But even if he had used the w^ords, said Sir 
 Charles, it is not Mr. Parnell's political opinions that your lordships have to 
 decide upon. The result of Mr. Davitt and Mr. Parnell's tour was, said Sir 
 Charles, the foundation of the American Land League. He read out its 
 constitution — the suppression of rack-renting, creation of peasant proprietor- 
 ship, organization of Irish tenant farmers. 
 
 Coming to Le Caron's story, Sir Charles treated with scorn the spy's account 
 of the influence of the Clan-na-Gael, "the mere rump" of the old Fenian 
 party. It certainly tried to " capture " Mr. Parnell's "open movement," but 
 "it failed." However, Le Caron, "or Beach," showed this much, that the 
 doings of the Clan-na-Gael caused Mr. Parnell endless difficulties in his 
 endeavours to secure the triumph of open and constitutional methods. Then 
 Sir Charles showed of what little use Le Caron was, even as a spy. " He was 
 by no means the important person he claimed to be ;" he had completely failed 
 to give forewarning of such dynamite enterprises as those in which Gallagher 
 and others were engaged. 
 
 Le Caron's interview with Mr. Parnell in the House of Commons ? "Why, 
 Mr. Parnell, who would tell his own story in the witness-box, had not the 
 smallest recollection of it. Mr. Parnell did not even remember having seen 
 Le Caron. But Mr. Parnell admitted that Le Caron, "or Beach," might have 
 been introduced to him as an American visitor, and that he — Mr. Parnell — 
 might have expressed regret at the hostile tactics of the American Fenians. 
 Mr. Parnell's whole career, said Sir Charles, has been against violence, against 
 all revolution of the physical sort. As for Le Caron's stor}' that Mr. Parnell 
 had given him a commission to bring about an alliance between the revolu- 
 tionary party and the constitutional party in America, and to send Devoy, or 
 Sullivan, or any one over to Ireland, Mr. Parnell denied it point blank. He 
 denied that he ever had any communication with these men or ever saw them. 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission, [April ii. 209 
 
 "Le Caron !" exclaimed Sir C. Russell, " He is a living lie," who has sub- 
 sisted by the betrayal of his friends. 
 
 At this stage Sir Charles made two of the best points in his great speech. 
 At the very time, said Sir Charles, that Le Caron w^as supposed to be in com- 
 munication with Mr. Parnell, the attitude of the Government w^as one of stern 
 hostility to Mr. Parnell and his colleagues. The Ministry would have been 
 only too glad to be put in possession of proofs of Mr. Parnell's compHcity with 
 the physical force emissaries from America. " ^Yhy did not Le Caron follow 
 it up ? Why did he not draw ^Mr. Parnell on ? " ^Yhy did he not inform the 
 Government whose spy he was? It was a damning admission that he did 
 none of these things. Once more, Le Caron saw Mr. Parnell in May, 1881. 
 By August, 1 88 1, after Le Caron had returned to America, the "alliance" 
 which he had been commissioned to effect was brought about. And shortly 
 after that, this spy Le Caron wrote one of his " long-winded, secret circulars " 
 about the secret Convention at which, as he now says, the " alliance " had 
 been resolved upon. Yet, exclaimed Sir Charles . Russell, this circular is 
 "utterly and absolutely silent" on "this one cardinal point " of the Parnell 
 alliance with the American party of physical force. 
 
 SLXTY-NINTH DA\\ 
 
 April ii. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell to-day made further reference to Le Caron's statement 
 that the " alliance " between Mr. Parnell and the American party of violence 
 was effected at an iVmerican secret Convention in August, 1881. This meant 
 that it was Mr. Parnell who allied himself with the physical force men — that 
 the latter thenceforth "pulled the wires." But if such an "alliance" had 
 been effected, what signs of its existence did the subsequent Conventions (of 
 1881-2-3-4-6) show? Sir Charles's answer was, in effect, that not even the 
 shadow of any such sign existed ; that the whole story of these conventions 
 — as shown in the spy Le Caron's, "or Beach's," "long-winded secret cir- 
 culars " to the English Government — demonstrated the very reverse of an^ 
 alliance. 
 
 In spite of the great detail into which Sir Charles Russell entered, his rapid' 
 review of these successive annual Conventions was clear in the extreme. Be- 
 ginning wdth the Chicago Convention of December, 188 1, Sir Charles Russell 
 quoted the instructions given to the United Brotherhood members as a proof 
 that the open party and the secret party were still at war. At the next Con- 
 vention, that at ^Yashington, in the spring of 1882, resolutions were passed in 
 support of ?.Ir. Parnell's constitutional policy; the "Irish people seek no 
 vengeance," w^as one of the expressions used in one of the resolutions, w^hich 
 also enjoined upon the Irish people the duty of abstaining from violence. The 
 President of the Convention had nothing whatever to do with the " U. B." 
 (United Brotherhood). And this same President also took the chair at the 
 Chicago meeting. Moreover the Washington meeting was held at the time 
 when Mr. Parnell and about one thousand others w^ere still in prison as 
 "suspects.'" 
 
 The next Convention was that of Philadelphia, April, 1883. Sir Charles 
 Russell read out Mr. Davitt's reply to the invitation to attend this Convention 
 — a very remarkable reply from a man whom Le Caron had described as being 
 (together with ^h. Parnell) in alliance with the " U. B.," or party of violence. 
 This reply, it should be explained, -was sent from prison, where Mr. Davitt, by 
 
 IS 
 
210 Thursday] Diary of [April ii. 
 
 reason of a speech of his, was kept under lock and key ; and some of his 
 friends were apprehensive lest, partly in consequence of this arrest, some violent 
 speeches might be delivered at the forthcoming meeting. That was why, in 
 his reply, Mr. Davitt said there need be no fear of violent language at Phila- 
 delphia, and spoke contemptuously of the few who called themselves dyna- 
 mitards. A dynamite war, continued Mr. Davitt in his reply, would be a war 
 against the English democracy ; it would arm public opinion against us ; it 
 would alienate from us the sympathy of all nations; and when "you hear of 
 dynamiters in New York, you can take it for granted they don't represent 
 us." 
 
 As to the report that Patrick Ford had joined the U. B., Mr. Davitt, in the 
 same reply, said that he could hardly believe that Ford had " abandoned 
 reason for Rossa." Is it not, exclaimed vSir Charles, the sheerest absurdity to 
 suggest that the man who wrote that, and the party of whom he was a leader, 
 were in "alliance" with the U. B. ? And almost contemporaneously with 
 this letter, continued Sir Charles, Mr. Parnell was in the House of Commons 
 denouncing the party of violence. At this Philadelphia Convention, said Sir 
 Charles Russell, there were eleven hundred delegates, only thirty or forty of 
 whom belonged to the extreme party. At this time also, T/ie h'ish World 
 was hostile to the Constitutional, or Parnellite movement. 
 
 Speaking yesterday. Sir Charles Russell was careful to point out that long 
 before this date The Irish World ceased to be the medium through which 
 contributions reached Ireland from America. Rossa, Boyton, Sheridan, and 
 Byrne were at this Convention, but only "as spectators." Rossa was at the 
 time " utterly discredited " by the constitutional organization in America. And 
 Mr. Parnell himself telegraphed to the Convention expressing the hope that it 
 would ' 'frame its platform " in such a way as to justify the Irish party in accepting 
 contributions from America. Passing over the Boston Convention of August, 
 1884, the story of which showed how powerless the " U. B.'s " were in com- 
 parison with the Constitutional party, Sir Charles Russell came to the Chicago 
 Convention of August, 1886. Mr. Gladstone's Bill, said Sir Charles, had 
 been defeated. Surely that Convention, then, afforded an opportunity to the 
 U. B.'s to ridicule all such trum.pery schemes for Home Rule. But what 
 happened at this Convention ? A vote of confidence in the wisdom of Mr. 
 Parnell and of thanks to Mr. Gladstone and the English democracy. At this 
 stage Sir Charles reverted, for a moment, to the extraordinary fact (upon which 
 he had dwelt the preceding day) that Le Caron " or Beach," spy though he 
 was, took no steps to inform the Government of his alleged talk with Mr. 
 Parnell about an "alliance"; took no steps to "draw Mr. Parnell on"; 
 made not the slightest allusion in his subsequent "long-winded " secret com- 
 munications to this supposed alliance. But, said Sir Charles, the most crushing 
 argument against Beach's story "is the history which I have just given your 
 lordships of these American conventions." The Beach despatches relating to 
 these conventions not only were silent on the subject of the alliance, but they 
 also proved the unsuccessful effort of the U. B. to control the constitutional 
 organization. 
 
 The above concluded the American portion of Sir Charles Russell's address. 
 Now he came to the Invincible conspiracy and the forged letters. He treated 
 them together, because, as he said, but for the forged letters Mr. Egan and the 
 others would never have been accused of association with the conspiracy. The 
 authority for including Egan, Brennan, and Boyton among the Invincibles 
 was the testimony of the three informers, Mulqueeny, Delaney, and Farragher, 
 and of Le Caron, who spoke only on hearsay. Sir Charles Russell showed 
 how extremely small an acquaintance the informers had with the Invincibles, 
 how " vague" their story was. Five men, said Sir Charles, were executed for 
 the Phoenix Park murders. Many more — and he named them — were sentenced 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [April ii. 211 
 
 to long-term, or life, imprisonments. How came it that Delaney was the only 
 Invincible among them whom The Tz'w^^ produced ? " Because," exclaimed 
 Sir Charles, "criminals though they were, they would not add perjury to their 
 crimes." How was it that not one of these convicts, still living, had said 
 anything to implicate the leaders of the constitutional movement ? All that 
 even Carey the informer, whose life had been a career of hypocrisy, could say 
 was that the money the conspirators were alleged to have received came, 
 according to one report, from America, according to others, from the Land 
 League. 
 
 Then Sir Charles Russell passed on to the "letters." A more merci- 
 less criticism than his description and denunciation of the conduct of The 
 Times has, perhaps, never been heard in a court of justice. One almost pitied 
 the accusers as they sat under the lash. "Such recklessness," "I might 
 almost say such criminal negligence," " persisted in rancorously " — with these, 
 and like expressions, the court rang. " And even when the letters were 
 discredited," thundered out Sir Charles, turning sharply upon The Times 
 counsel, "even then they did not make that generous disclaimer, that abso- 
 lute and complete withdrawal which would have been the act of common 
 justice and common charity." 
 
 Merely because Mr. Parnell was "inactive," some " people were inclined to 
 beheve in the genuineness of the letters. They did not know i\Ir. Parnell. 
 What ]Mr. Parnell cared for was the unmasking of the foul plot that led to the 
 manufacture of the letters. " It will be your lordships' function to aid him ; or, 
 if it be not, he will pursue his task perseveriiigly, unrelentingly, until he 
 exposes this foul conspiracy." As for Pigott — poor Pigott ! — he could not be 
 " accused of bringing voluntarily his spurious wares to the market." But he 
 was in desperate straits for money, and his children were in want. " Then " — 
 a pause, — " came the tempter " ; and at the word Sir Charles, with his right 
 hand stretched out, pointed at Houston, who, sitting in his corner seat near 
 The Times people, changed colour, and looked as if he were trying to swallow 
 a lump in his throat. Hovtston's conduct in destroying his Pigott correspon- 
 dence was " that of a man knowing he was engaged in an infamous fraud.'' 
 All The Tz'w^i- people "seemed to have lost their heads except Mr. Buckle, 
 the editor,"' who passed Houston on to ^Ir. Macdonald. Then Mr. Mac- 
 donald came in for his share of description — Mr. ^lacdonald was a man who 
 "swallowed wholesale, in spite of improbability," every story which told 
 against the Irish members. The Times took no warning even from Houston's 
 precaution not to guarantee the authenticity of the wares he was offering for 
 " sale or return " — another of Sir Charles's cutting expressions. In the middle 
 of last year The Times people knew that the alleged letters came from 
 Pigott ; and from October last they were aware of Pigott's interview with Mr. 
 Labouchere and others, and of accusations made against Pigott to the effect 
 that he was the forger ; yet they took no pains to inquire how Pigott came by 
 the letters. Then Sir Charles retold, with a grave humour, Pigott's legend of 
 the black bag, and of Pigott's being accosted in Paris. by " Murphy," whom he 
 did not know, and by " Tom Brown," whom he did not know, and of Pigott's 
 taking an oath, " on his knees," before other people whom he did not know. 
 But mark the oath. Pigott was not to divulge names befoi-e a court of justice. 
 ^Vhy that reference to a judicial inquiry? asked Sir Charles Russell. Pigott's 
 last letter from Paris was. Sir Charles held, an indication that Shannon knew 
 of Pigott's intention to run away. And the Pigott telegram, signed Rowland 
 Ponsonby, from Madrid, was in his estimation a proof of pre-arrangement 
 The letters case having broken down, the accusers, Sir Charles said, might 
 have withdrawn from their general case, which, in fact, was destroyed through 
 its sheer extravagance. They had then their opportunity of showing they were 
 not " filling the role of pertinacious, rancorous opponents." " Bui no, the vials 
 
212 Friday Diary of [April 12. 
 
 of wrath must be poiux-d out to the last dregs upon the head of the Irish, 
 party." 
 
 SEVENTIETH DAY. 
 
 April 12. 
 
 Beginning at half-past ten o'clock, Sir Charles Russell ended at half-past 
 twelve his speech for the accused, the greatest and most impressive speech ever 
 delivered on the subject of Ireland. The subject, of which the style has been 
 in every way worthy, has raised this speech entirely beyond and above the 
 ordinary forensic sphere. The history of English law and justice offers no 
 parallel to Sir Charles Russell's task, whether we regard the unique character 
 of his position or the greatness of the cause committed to him. His task 
 is the defence of a nation. The advocate has become merged in the patriot 
 and the statesman. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell began with a rapid survey of the charges made by T/ie 
 Times against the Irish leaders. The first of them was that the Irish leaders 
 had based their movement on crime, not stopping short even at the line of 
 murder. Had not the accusers spoken of the enforcement of the high decrees 
 of secret conclaves with ihe bullet and the knife? Yesterday, said Sir Charles 
 Russell, when dealing with the letters, " I felt that I was flogging a dead horse." 
 But "take those letters away, and what becomes of the accusers' evidence?" 
 Among the alleged members of the supposed murderous "conclave" were 
 INIessrs. Sheridan, Egan, Brennan, against whom no proof whatever had been 
 produced. Mr. Brennan, for example, was, as Sir Charles Russell again 
 repeated, imprisoned in May, 18S1, nearly six months before the supposed 
 formation of the murderous society (the " Invincibles " of t'hcenix Park), and 
 he was released on the i6th of June, 1S82, after the murder. Making a pass- 
 ing reference to the Attorney-General's conduct of T/ie Times case, Sir Charles 
 remarked, with a wave of his hand, that even Le Caron himself, in his " dis- 
 gust '' with the manner of the prosecution, came forward to put The Times people 
 straight. The second of the charges, continued Sir Charles, was that the Irish 
 leaders took no steps, either by word or act, to stop outrage : to which Sir 
 Charles replied by reference to the general counter-testimony given in his speech 
 during the last two or three da3-s. Constable O'Malley, the police reporter, 
 one of The Times'" own witnesses, had attended hundreds of Nationalist 
 meetings ; and his testimony was that the presidents, or chairmen, generally 
 condemned lawlessness. As to the third charge, that if condemnations of out- 
 rage were made they were hypocritical. Sir Charles Russell cited against The 
 Times the evidence of their own witness, Mr. O'Shea. 
 
 The fourth charge was that no cause save League agitation could possibly, 
 could conceivably be alleged in explanation of the disturbances and crimes 
 since 1S79. Sir Charles Russell's reply to this charge — his lifting of the veil 
 which the Attorney-General dropped over pre-Land League Ireland — was in 
 many respects the most important part of his speech. It contained a history of 
 the Ireland of the Nineteenth Century — a history the clearest, the most con- 
 secutive, and compact. As for the fifth charge, habitual pajTnent of Land 
 League funds for outrage, there was not, said Sir Charles, glancing at his argu- 
 ments of the preceding days, a tittle of evidence. Summing up what he had 
 formerly said about the sixth charge — that ^Ir. Parnell was aware that Sheridan 
 was organizing outrage in the West, Sir Charles passed on to the seventh — 
 that the Invincibles were a branch of the Land League. The forged Egan 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [April 12. 213 
 
 and Carey letters were, said Sir Charles Russell, the only ground for this 
 accusation. We pass over the eighth, which was, that Mr. Parnell knew of 
 the Invincible plots, which the Attorney-General said he did not mean to 
 advance, but which, Sir Charles argued, was implied in The Times case. The 
 ninth and last was that Mr. Parnell had sent Byrne a hundred pounds to enable 
 him to escape from justice. Here, again, Sir Charles summed up rapidly, 
 lucidly, what he had previously said on that matter, showing how the payment 
 was one of the ordinary open, " straightforward, and thoroughly innocent 
 transactions " between the richer League in Dublin and the poorer, and often 
 impecunious League in London. 
 
 Having thus rapidly surveyed the nine charges to which his six days' speech 
 had been an answer, Sir Charles Russell came to his peroration. "Your lord- 
 ships," said he, "are trying the history of a ten years' revolution in Ireland," 
 and ''you are trying it at a moment when, by the legal process of the (Queen's 
 Courts" (the Land Commission Courts) "the Irish people are gathering the 
 fruits of that revolution." And here he paused for a moment to pronounce a 
 generous eulogy on the principal actors in that revolution. " They have done 
 marvellous work — marvellous in the face of the difficulties they have had to 
 contend against." When these leaders began their work, ten short years ago, 
 the Irish peasant stood tremblingly before the landlord, agent, bailiff ; to-day 
 "he stands erect, and becomes a free citizen in a free country." In ten years, 
 Irish secret organizations have given place to " constitutional means of redress." 
 despair to buoyant hope, distrust of England to feelings of friendship, and — in 
 England itself— indifference to Ireland, to heartfelt interest in her fate. "I 
 have come, my lords, to the end." Slowly and with frequent pauses, and in 
 tones that would have hardly been audible but for the deep stillness. Sir Charles 
 spoke under strong emotion. He stopped when he spoke of the land of his 
 birth ; and again when he said that in defending Ireland he was serving the 
 best interests of the country, England, where his laborious life has been passed. 
 Once, and once only, his voice rang out, loudly, almost fiercely, and that was 
 when, turning suddenly round, he exclaimed, "to-day the position is changed ; 
 We are the accusers ; " and then, pointing to the representatives and counsel 
 of The Times, " the accused are there." 
 
 Here are the last sentences of the speech. The reader will note the skilful 
 touch in the word repay : — 
 
 " I have spoken not merely as an advocate. I have spoken for the land of my birth : but I 
 feel, I profoundly feel, that I have been speaking to, for, and in the best interests of England, 
 of the country where mj- years of laborious life have been passed, and where I have received 
 kindness, consideration, and regard, which I should be glad to make some attempt to repay. 
 My lord, my colleagues and myself have had a responsible duty, we have had to defend not 
 merely the leaders of the nation but the nation of Ireland itself. We have had to defend the 
 leaders of the nation whom it was sought to crush, to defend the nation whose hopes it was 
 sought to cast down, to dash to the ground. This inquiry, intended as a curse, has proved a 
 blessing. Designed, prominently designed to ruin one man, it has been his vindication. In 
 opening this case I said that we represented the accused. ]NIy lords, I claim leave tp say that 
 to-day the positions are reversed— we are the accusers — the accused are there (pointing to the 
 representatives of The Times). My lords, I hope this inquiry at its present •-tage and in its 
 future development will serve more even than as a vindication— that it will remove painful mis- 
 conceptions as to the character, the actions, the motives, the aims of the Irish people and of the 
 leaders of the Irish people ; that it will set earnest minds— and, thank God, there are many 
 earnest and honest minds in this land— thinking for themselves on the question ; that _ it wAW 
 remove grievous misconceptions and hasten the day of true union, of real_ reconciliation 
 between the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain, and that there will be dispelled, 
 and dispelled for ever, the cloud, the weighty cloud, that has rested on the history of a noble 
 race, and dimmed the glory of a mighty empire.' 
 
 "A great speech worthy of a great occasion," were the words of a message 
 which Sir James Hannen, dashing off on a piece of paper, passed down to the 
 speaker. 
 
214 Tuesday] Diary of [April 30. 
 
 SEVENTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 April 30. 
 
 At three minutes past the half-hour, Mr. Asquith, rising, called out, " Mr. Par- 
 nell.'" This was a surprise to the spectators, who expected that Sir Charles 
 Russell would conduct the examination-in-chief. However, the honours of the 
 day fell to the cross-examiner of The Times manager, and Sir Charles Russell 
 sat quietly following his distinguished junior's performance. Mr. Parnell 
 looked fairly well, as he stood up in the witness-box. He certainly was in 
 good spirits. During the five-and-a-half hours' questioning Mr. Parnell re- 
 mained on his feet, not showing the slightest symptom of fatigue. In that time 
 he gave a clear, connected, and interesting sketch of his career, from his birth, 
 only forty-three years ago, to the foundation of the National League at the end 
 of 1882. 
 
 Heir to a name famous in Irish history, and to a high social position, Mr. 
 Parnell, escaped from college, might have stepped at once into some prominent 
 place in Irish politics. The country life of Avondale had a greater attraction 
 for him. He did not trouble himself about parliamentary matters. He took 
 some share in the local affairs of his county, Wicklow ; and, for the rest, he read 
 Irish histor}-, and kept an outlook, at a pleasant distance, upon the brawling 
 world of politics. But in those quiet Avondale days, from about 1868 to 1874, 
 the political ideas of the future leader of the Irish party and people were taking 
 definite form and shape — crystallizing themselves. He was enthusiastic enough 
 to cherish an ideal, and his political ideal was that of Gavan Duffv and the men 
 of '48. 
 
 The first great political event which determined the future of Mr. Parneil's 
 political career was the Ballot Act of 1872. Here at last were the means of the 
 liberation of the Irish peasant from his ancient thraldom under the landlord. 
 No longer need the Irish peasants allow themselves to be " driven to the poll 
 like sheep " ; no longer shall the landlord have it in his power to rack-rent, 
 drive forth into the world the tenant who dares exercise his rights of a free 
 citizen. "Driven to the poll like sheep "' — -Mr. Parnell pronounced the words 
 with some emphasis. 'Mr. Parnell, replying to Mr. Asquith's questions, passed 
 rapidly over the histor}- of his first connection with Mr. Butt's Home Rule 
 League, one of the members of which was INIr. Patrick Egan, of whose honesty 
 and ability I, said Mr. Parnell, formed "a high opinion." 
 
 In 1S75-6, and in Parliament, Mr. Parnell still occupied what the Americans 
 call a " back seat." But, as usual, he was watching the course of affairs. And 
 he told the Court, in his quiet, mater-of-fact, unimpassioned manner, what he 
 thought of Isaac Butt's followers; most were "lukewarm," others were 
 "ready to take ofiice at the first chance." After a string of questions about 
 Mr. Parneil's connection with the Dublin Amnesty Association and other 
 matters, ^Mr. Asquith paused, as if he had something important to say. " Now, 
 Mr. Parnell, were you ever a member of a secret society ? " Mr. Parnell also 
 paused. Deep silence in the court. " Yes," said Mr. Parnell, and he paused 
 again, exciting much curiosity. " I belonged to the Foresters' Society," quoth 
 Mr. Parnell ; and Mr. Parneil's audience laughed outright. The President 
 smiled. So did ]Mr. Justice Day. "As for another secret society, the ' I. R.B.,' 
 I never joined it," said Mr. Parnell, " and I was never asked." Mr. Asquith 
 "put in " a list of the Irish measures which the Home Rule Leaguers, other- 
 wise the Buttites, endeavoured, unsuccessfully, to pass through Parliament. 
 Mr. Asquith's object in putting in these documents was to demonstrate the con- 
 stitutional character of the Irish movement from its beginning. Mr. Parnell 
 described very briefly the origin of the Parnellite party, paying a high 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [April 30. 215 
 
 compliment to the "sterling character" and "straightforwardness" and the 
 patriotism of Mr. Biggar, one of the two or three who were its first members. 
 He described how he gave a new direction to the work of Irish members in the 
 House of Commons by plunging with them into Imperial questions ; and how 
 humane reforms in prison discipline and army and navy discipline were the 
 results. Next he narrated how in the years 1877-8-9 he began to study hungry 
 and ragged Ireland with his own eyes — away west in Mayo. " I travelled 
 through miles of the finest land without seeing a house or meeting a human 
 being," said Mr. Parnell, but I found a congested population on the poorest 
 lands. But, added T^Ir. Parnell, when we proposed remedial legislation the 
 Irish Secretary of the day, JNIr. Lowther, "pooh-poohed the whole thing." 
 According to ]\Ir. Parnell's brief account of the foundation of the Land League, 
 he was at first disinclined to join Mr. Davitt in the enterprise, for this reason, 
 among others, that he rather disapproved of any course of action which might 
 render the leaders of the movement responsible for " eveiy foolish act of the 
 local branches." Next ISIr. Parnell entered into the details of his American 
 trip. He went to America in 1879 with Mr. Dillon, to collect money for the 
 distressed districts, which, as already said, he visited in person. 
 
 Here Mr. Parnell entered upon a very interesting part of his story, flatly 
 contradicting Assistant-Adjutant-General Le Caron at every step. It is 
 utterly untrue, said Mr. Parnell, that as soon as I reached New York I called 
 upon Patrick Ford. "I have never met him in my life," said Mr. Parnell, 
 smiling. Was it true, as Le Caron said, that Mr. Parnell's tour was entirely 
 in the hands of the Clan-na-Gael? "False," said Mr, Parnell, in his quiet 
 way ; "my tour was in nobody's hands." Mr. Parnell's story of his tour was, 
 in some passages, amusing. There was no organization at all, said Mr. 
 Parnell, " we had to complain of the want of it ; " and he described how in 
 their geographical ignorance Mr, Dillon and himself often passed by large 
 towns where they might have spoken to advantage. On one occasion, owing 
 to want of organization and of help, Mr. Parnell and his companion had 
 to retrace their steps over a journey of a thousand miles the day after a 
 meeting. 
 
 Here Mr. Parnell produced a map to show how erratic, in consequence of 
 the lack of co-operation from the Americans — revolutionary or otherwise — had 
 been his trips over the American continent. According to Le Caron's state- 
 ment the tour was carefully " bossed" from beginning to end. According to 
 Mr. Parnell's interesting narrative, the tour was an unaided, un-" bossed," 
 higgledy-piggledy (to quote'an expression of Sir Charles Russell's) peregrination. 
 We went "by instinct," said Mr. Parnell. The Cincinnati "last link" 
 speech ? The Attorney-General said that if Mr. Parnell had not delivered 
 that speech, Mr. Parnell would not have been listened to in America. But 
 Mr. Parnell, standing in the witness-box, declared that he had addressed forty 
 meetings before he delivered the Cincinnati address. In the second place, 
 Mr. Parnell declared he had no recollection whatever of the "last link" 
 expression. " I don't believe I used it. It was unlike anything I ever said 
 or thought. I could not find the expression in The Cincinnati Gazette, the 
 newspaper of the very place where the speech was delivered. The expression 
 only appeared in The Irish World, in New York, a thousand miles away, and 
 at the meeting The Irish World had no reporter." The words, said _ Mr. 
 Parnell, repeating himself, " are entirely opposed to anything I ever said or 
 thought ; if I did use them, they must have been largely qualified by other 
 matter." 
 
 Mr. Asquith asked Mr, Parnell about a circular telegram which he sent 
 from Montreal to New York, inviting people to meet him there on his return 
 journey to Europe, Mr. Ford in transmitting the telegram to various parts in 
 America wrote about the "glittering banner of the party," and about "keep- 
 
2i6 Tuesday] Diary of [April 30. 
 
 ing the ball rolling." But all that, said Mr. Parnell, with a smile, looking at 
 the f'ord telegram, which professed to be a copy of the Parnell original, is 
 "journalistic padding." The Conference which met in New York on Mr. 
 Parnell's invitation was the origin of the American branch of the Land 
 League. "There is no truth whatever," said Mr. Parnell, "in the statement 
 that I left our interests in the hands of Patrick Ford." He next described 
 how he collected sixty thousand pounds in America for the relief of Irish 
 distress. " All the proceeds from my own meetings," he continued, went 
 without an exception, to the relief of the distress of which the Government 
 of the day took no notice. Plalf a million pounds were collected in America 
 and Australia, and elsewhere for relief, to which, said Mr. Parnell, you may 
 add half a million from relatives in private remittances to their friends in 
 Ireland. At last the Government moved in the matter, but too late, and 
 more in the interest of the landlords than of the peasants. 
 
 Then came a portion of Mr. Parnell's evidence, directly contradicting 
 TAe Times accusation that the League was in association with Fenians and 
 other physical-force people at home. He described how he and his friends 
 were attacked by the I.R.B.'s in Wexford in the general election of 1880, and 
 again at the Rotunda meeting in Dublin, April 30, 18S0. The Rotunda 
 platform was stormed by the Fenian party. Mr. Parnell explained what Mr. 
 Davitt intended by asking the Rotunda meeting to give one of the Fenian 
 speakers a hearing. It was because the speaker in question undertook to go 
 away quietly if he were allowed to speak. According to the prosecution, Mr. 
 Davitt's action was evidence of collusion with the party of violence. 
 
 Coming to the troubled times of 1SS0-2, Mr. Parnell recalled to mind how 
 Mr. Davitt, returning from America (end of 1S80) drew his attention to the 
 increase of crime in the poverty-stricken districts, and how the League issued 
 a circular (produced in court) warning the peasants against the commission of 
 outrage. ^Ir. Davitt's imprisonment in that period, Mr. Parnell described as 
 a grave mistake. Here I\Ir. Parnell stopped and paid his warm, generous 
 tribute of admiration to Mr. Davitt. "He was the one man," said Mr. 
 Parnell, "whose history and antecedents gave him the claim and the power 
 to control his countr}'men. " One might have noticed, that there was a tremor 
 in !Mr. Parnell's voice as he spoke about his friend and fellow-patriot. He 
 glanced for an instant at the spot where ^Ir. Davitt was sitting. 
 
 Mr. Davitt's imprisonment was not the only misfortune that befel the party. 
 All the principal leaders of the movement were put in prison. One result of 
 this was disorganization in the offices of the Land League. The clerks, said 
 Mr. Parnell, did what they liked. There was no responsible head over them. 
 That, said Mr. Parnell, accounted for the unsatisfactoiy condition of the 
 League books during a period of the League's existence. As for his own 
 imprisonment in Kilmainham, one notable thing he did there was the issue of 
 the No Rent manifesto. This subject led to an examination of Mr. Parnell's 
 alleged communications with the party of violence while he was still a prisoner. 
 It was " utterly untrue " to say he was visited by Eugene Davis in the disguise 
 of a priest, or that he sent out instructions for co-operation with the I.R.B., 
 or that any correspondence passed between him and Egan planning assassina- 
 tion, and payment for the same. 
 
 All the charges about sanctioning outrage in Ireland and plotting the death 
 of ]\Ir. Forster and a number of prominent officials. Mr. Parnell repudiated 
 with a few simple words, more expressive of indifference than of contempt. 
 He said he had never even heard of the Invincibles before the Phoenix Park 
 trials of 1883. It was "quite a mistake" to allege that he had advised the 
 retention of Mr. Davitt in prison at the time of the release of the suspects. 
 And Mr. O'Shea was, he said, wrong in stating that he had advised the con- 
 tinued confinement of ]Mr. Brennan. He contradicted Mr. O'Shea's story that 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [May i. 217 
 
 he, Mr. Parnell, adopted the Phoenix Park manifesto, because it was necessary 
 to flatter Mr. Davitt's vanity. "I regarded the Phoenix Park murder," said 
 Mr. Parnell, impressively, "as the greatest possible calamity which could 
 befall our movement." He expressed the opinion that the murderers were, 
 possibly, Americans. Mr. Parnell also contradicted Mr. 0"Shea's story of his 
 asking for pohce protection. "I never had police protection, "_ ]Mr. Parnell 
 remarked. He shook his head, by way of saying he knew nothing about the 
 letter in which ^Mr. Burke was said to have got no more than his deserts. But 
 it is unnecessary to pursue this subject. Enough to say that Mr. Parnell 
 denied the construction put by the prosecution upon the Byrne cheque, and 
 that he explained why he sent it. Le Caron's stories were answered in the 
 same way. 'Mx. Parnell could neither recollect the name nor the appearance 
 of Major Le Caron. " Entirely imaginary. ... I never said nor thought it, 
 «ven in the worst period of coercion," said ■Sir. Parnell, when asked whether 
 he told Le Caron that he had ceased to believe in any cure but force. "Never 
 sent a message by him to America," " never thought of such a thing." "It 
 Avas not my habit to give my photograph away," he said, in reply to other 
 questions. But, said Mr. Parnell, " I "think this is my genuine signature." He 
 explained that people often sent him his photograph with a request that he 
 might return it with his signature attached. All this while, Le Caron was in 
 court. 
 
 SEVENTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 May I. 
 
 *•' This was quite a revelation to me ; I would on no account have sanctioned 
 such a payment," w^as ^Ir. Parnell's answer to jMr. Asquith's question about JNIr. 
 Timothy Horan's letter to the central office of the Land League in Dubhn in 
 September, iSSi. Tim Horan was secretary of the Castleisland branch of the 
 Land League, and it was stated in the earlier part of the trial that he applied 
 to Dublin for money wherewith to pay men engaged in an illegal transaction, 
 and got it. In his opening speech Sir Charles Russell explained this payment 
 from the central office in Dublin by saying that during the period in question 
 the central office was in a state of disorganization in consequence of the im- 
 prisonment of the chief leaders and the absence of others of them in Paris. 
 In consequence of the arrests there were frequent changes in the central 
 •office staff. Mr. Parnell made a similar explanation in his earlier evidence. 
 The payment, he said, must have been made during the illness of Mr. Sexton, 
 who was acting as secretary. And to-day ^Ir. Parnell declared that Mr. Lgan 
 could not have been responsible for the payment, because ^Mr. Egan was at the 
 time in Paris. In further reference to this subject of League money, Mr. 
 Parnell said that, as far as he knew, none of it was devoted to the " Spread the 
 Light" mission of The Irish World m Ireland. " I would not have permitted 
 it." Nor was Mr. Parnell aware that any copies of The Irish JVorld were 
 posted from the Land League Dublin office for distribution in Ireland. " The 
 Irish JForld ha.d a fund of its own ; " and as for its correspondent in Ireland, 
 he was not a member of the Land League, he even " attacked us, and called 
 us opprobrious names." If, added ]\Ir. Parnell, there was any posting of 
 copies of The Irish World from the League office, it must have been during 
 the period of disorganization, when, as he formerly remarked, there was no 
 responsible supervision, and the clerks did what they liked. One other state- 
 ment of ]vlr. Parnell's about The Irish World is that after May, 1882, no 
 
2iS ]Ved]icsday] Diary of [May i» 
 
 money was sent through that journal to the League in Ireland, " so far as I 
 knew. And in February, 1883, I said, during a debate in the House of 
 Commons, that Patrick Ford's aims and hopes were not mine." As to other 
 Irish Americans with whom — as at the Conventions of Philadelphia, Buffalo, 
 and other places — the League leaders had communication, Mr. Parnell stated 
 that, as far as he knew, no prominent member of the Land and National 
 Leagues in America ever was a dynamiter. As for O'Donovan Rossa, said 
 Mr. Parnell, his influence ceased as soon as the Constitutional movement 
 began in America. But before that, Rossa undoubtedly did possess influence — 
 dating from the Irish Fenian period (1865), and owing to what he himself had 
 sufi'ered for what he deemed to be his country's service. 
 
 Mr. Asquith now came to the last section of his examination-in-chief, that 
 concerned with the various "funds" collected in America, and published in 
 T/ie Irish World. The Mitchell fund, collected for the widow of one of the 
 most distinguished of the '48 men ? Mr. Parnell knew nothing of it. Nor of 
 the "Skirmishing Fund" — except that it came to a close even before the Land 
 League was founded. Nor of the " Spread the Light Fund," except that its 
 object was to stimulate the circulation of The Irish World in Ireland. One 
 half of the Land League fund did come through The Irish World, said Mr. 
 Parnell ; some of the Constitutional party in America objected to transmission 
 through that paper, but, said Mr. Parnell, " I did not feel at liberty to refuse. 
 His object was to associate Irishmen all over the world in the Constitutional 
 movement. About the O'Donnell defence and the martyrs' testimonial funds 
 he knew nothing. And now, said Mr. Asquith, for the whole of this move- 
 ment from its beginning in 1879 to the present day, have you to the best of 
 your ability honestly endeavoured to conduct it within Constitutional lines and 
 within the limits of the law? Here is Mr. Parnell's reply : "I can say that I 
 have honestly endeavoured to conduct it within the limits of the Constitution 
 and the law, and have endeavoured to keep it free from crime. I will, how- 
 ever, make this exception with regard to the technical offences with which we 
 were charged in Dublin at the State trials of 1880. We were charged with 
 inciting the tenants not to pay their rents, and if that be an offence against the 
 law we admit it ; and if the same thing came over again we should do the same 
 thing again." 
 
 At twenty-five minutes past eleven o'clock iSIr. Asquith ended his examina- 
 tion-in-chief The Attorney-General was up in an instant. Until four o'clock 
 (except during the usual half-hour's interval) he displayed an energ}-, a warmth, 
 a liveliness, and occasionally a (little) temper that were in striking contrast 
 with his manner during his previous conduct of The Times'' case. There was 
 just one other contrast equally striking, and that was Mr. Parnell's imperturb- 
 able coolness during Sir Richard Webster's performance. The warmer and 
 more impatient grew Sir Richard, the more blandly, smilingly, deliberately did 
 Mr. Parnell give his replies. It looked as if Sir Richard Webster, smarting 
 under ih^ fiasco of the letters, had made up his mind to punish Mr. Parnell 
 somehow. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster came to close quarters at once by asking Mr. Parnell — 
 with reference to one of his statements in his examination-in-chief — whether he 
 seriously meant to say that he had never heard of the Clan-na-Gael as a " mur- 
 der club " until he heard Le Caron's stor}' about them. That is "absolutely'* 
 true, said jNIr. Parnell, with a smile. And it was "perfectly" new to him 
 (another smile) that the Clan-na-Gael programme contained a " dynamite " 
 policy. How would ISfr. Parnell explain the paragraph in the very first number 
 of United Ireland, August 13, 1 88 1 (nearly eight years before the advent of 
 Le Caron) in which " the scattered Clan-na-Gael " threatened a death-sentence 
 against every evicting landlord? The paragraph was Rossa's "warning to 
 landlords," extracted from The Irish World ; and United Ireland, just then 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. ^ [May i. 219 
 
 established, was the organ of Mr. Parnell and the League. " I never saw that 
 paragraph," said Mr. Parnell, " I knew nothing of it ; " and then, in his quiet 
 way, he pointed out that the expression "scattered Clan-na-Gael" meant 
 simply the "scattered Irish race " — another expression in The I For /d extract, 
 and not a definitely constituted association. [Clan-na-Gael means, in English, 
 " children," or race, of the " Gael," or Celts.] 
 
 Then the Attorney-General tried Mr. Parnell from another direction. INIr. 
 Parnell had said that from May, 1882, T/ie Irish World became hostile to Mr. 
 Parnell's policy. Was that so ? Yes : The World became hostile at the 
 time of Mr. Parnell's release from Kilmainham, and because of his withdrawal 
 of the No-Rent Manifesto. But in that case, how, Sir Richard asked sharply, 
 could Mr. Parnell account for the fact that the Irish League continued to re- 
 ceive funds from The World long subsequently to May, 1882. Sir Richard 
 planted his palms on his hips, and paused for a reply. The reply came, 
 in the usual way, slowly, and with one of Mr. Parnell's pleasant smiles. 
 Such payments must have come from remote branches of the American 
 League, which branches were unaware of the change in The Worhfs policy ; 
 the contributions came "filtering" in as before, and Mr. Ford, as a matter of 
 course, must have sent them on to Ireland. "Old sums in hand" must have 
 been coming in, said Mr. Parnell, "but the policy was changed all the same." 
 
 Sir Richard again returned to the charge. Could Mr. Parnell quote a single 
 article of The Irish World, a single expression which justified his statement 
 that The Irish World became opposed to him after -May, 1882. Not having 
 the advantage of the Attorney-General's knowledge of The Irish Woj-ld, quoth 
 Mr. Parnell, he could not give any quotations right off; but, doubtless, he 
 would be able to discover some in the files of the paper. Here Sir Richard 
 Webster warmed up, and from that moment, for an hour or two, most of the cross 
 examination was a sort of single combat around these two points — challenge to 
 Mr. Parnell to produce articles or expressions in The Irish World showing the 
 alleged hostility to him from May, 1882 ; and challenge to say whether or not 
 the League continued to receive from 1882 to 1886, thousands of pounds from 
 The World for its Parliamentar}- fund. Sir Richard Webster pounded away in 
 the style of an Old Bailey practitioner. Mr. Parnell maintained his composure. 
 " It is a surprise to me," said Mr. Parnell, if there have been any such receipts, 
 The Irish World did not collect anything for the Irish Parliamentary party. 
 The question and answer were repeated, the Attorney-General challenging Mr. 
 Parnell to swear, and Mr. Parnell simply replying that he knew nothing of 
 an Irish World Parliamentar}' fund. The chief statement which Sir Richard 
 Webster took as the base, so to speak, of his attack on Mr. Parnell was Mr. 
 Parnell's declaration in the House of Commons in 1886 that for the past five 
 years The Irish World was hostile to his policy. Sir Richard was always 
 challenging Mr. Parnell to produce his proofs, and jNIr. Parnell repeated as 
 persistently his answer that, not being a regular reader of The Irish Woi'ld, he 
 did not carry the details of its articles in his head, but that, with a little time 
 to look up old files, he would be sure to unearth a good many. 
 
 Then Sir Richard Webster tried to confute Mr. Parnell out of the mouth of 
 Mr. Davitt— who, by the way, appeared to be considerably amused at the 
 course the cross-examination was taking. In October, 1 885, Mr. Davitt pub- 
 lished in The Irish JVorld itself an article in which he praised the "' unparalleled 
 services" of The Wo7'ld to the Irish Land League, and declared that "the first 
 inspiration of the movement and most of its financial strength came from The 
 World.'' What of that? asked the Attorney-General. Mr. Parnell replied 
 that he did not agree with Mr. Davitt's estimate of The Irish World, and that 
 the " chief inspiration came from the Irish people themselves." But warm and 
 brusque — angry, sometimes — as was the Attorney-General, he only once made 
 use of a harsh expression. " Untrue " was the word. He said he would pro- 
 
220 Wednesday] Diary of [May i. 
 
 duce articles and extracts from T/ie Irish World which would show Mr. Par- 
 nell's statement (that The PVor/d was hostile to him since May, 1882) to be 
 " untrue." But in other parts of his cross-examination, Sir Richard Webster 
 made use of the less ambiguous adjective "incorrect," or its equivalent. To show 
 the incorrectness, he read articles of The Irish IFor/d in support of the Messrs. 
 Redmond, when they were on a political tour in America. While the reading 
 was going on Mr. Reid rose to say that Mr. Redmond denied the accuracy of 
 The Irish World reports. 
 
 Then Sir Richard returned to his contributions. Was Mr. Parnell aware 
 that since ]May, 1882, the writer known as " Transatlantic " of The Irish World 
 had contributed a pound to the Parliamentary fund? Xo, it was new to 
 Mr. Parnell ; but, remarked Mr. Parnell with a smile, " I am glad to hear he 
 did." At this there was a little burst of laughter in court, which did not im- 
 prove the Attorney-General's temper. And what about a contribution from 
 The Irish World (50 dollars) in 1885 ? Mr. Parnell explained that that must 
 have been a personal contribution from Mr. Ford himself, in his satisfaction at 
 the overthrow of the Liberal Government in 1885, and the prospect of the con- 
 cession of Home Rule by the Tories. Several times during his cross-examina- 
 tion INIr. Parnell said that in 1885-6 Mr. Ford's policy of hostility began to 
 change again into one of friendliness. The Attorney-General, leaving America 
 and Patrick Ford, returned to Ireland and the Fenians. He questioned Mr. 
 Parnell about the " landlord garrison" whose expulsion was to be the first step 
 to Irish independence. Mr. Parnell said that when he spoke of driving out 
 the landlords he only meant landlordism — the system, not individuals. The 
 landlords, said ]\Ir. Parnell, are popularly known in Ireland as the English 
 "garrison." I never wished, he repeated, for more than Parliamentary inde- 
 pendence. And all the stories about a coalition between the open and secret 
 organizations for the purpose of effecting independence were " absolutely un- 
 true." In his replies to Mr. Asquith Mr. Parnell mentioned the Enniscorthy 
 and Rotunda meetings as instances of Fenian hostility to the open movement. 
 But now Sir Richard Webster challenged INIr. Parnell to name any other in^ 
 stances showing opposition between Leaguers and Fenians. Mr. Parnell re- 
 plied that he mentioned those two because he himself had personal experience 
 of them ; and that on inquiry he would be able to find other instances. Be- 
 sides, he said, the stronger the League grew the few^er became the physical- 
 force party's opportunities to create disturbance. 
 
 After this there followed, and lasted until four o'clock, when the Court 
 adjourned, a fusillade of questions over the Avhole field — questions about trips 
 to America, trips to Ireland, Mr. Davitt's speeches, Scrab's speeches. Sir 
 Richard severely cross-examined Mr. Parnell about his alleged meeting with a 
 mysterious Fenian at Queenstown, when Mr. Parnell was starting on his 
 American tour. Nothing definite came of it. Nor did ]Mr. Parnell remember 
 anything whatever about a supposed meeting between him and Mr. Davitt and 
 an American Fenian, at w^hich the plan of the future Land League was laid 
 down. Nor could ^Ir. Parnell tell whom Mr. Davitt saw in America. He 
 saw " hundreds " — " thousands " of people, perhaps. The audience laughed 
 and Sir Richard grew angry. 
 
 ^Ir. Davitt never discussed the plans of his American tour with me, said 
 Mr. Parnell. Had Mr. Parnell ever repudiated "Scrab's" "utterances"? 
 Never heard much about "Scrab's" utterances, said Mr. Parnell, smiling. 
 " Scrab " tried to get in at the tail-end of meetings, and nobody attended to 
 him. " I had something more important to do than to watch Scrab," quoth 
 Mr. Parnell. ]Mr. Parnell gave the same answer in respect of the orations of 
 a certain JNIalachi Sullivan. Mr. Parnell made very light of Malachi. Then 
 the Attorney-General read a fearfully long manifesto signed by American 
 Fenians whom Mr. Parnell met in America — not knowing them to be Fenians. 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [May 2. 221 
 
 Mr. Asquith here mildly asked whether it was necessary to read all that. " I 
 was thinking the same," remarked the President. And again the audience 
 laughed. But Sir Richard solemnly said he must read it. Now, Mr. Parnell, 
 will you say you have never seen that manifesto ? " Never seen or heard of it," 
 says Mr. Parnell, with an expression of surprise. Again the spectators 
 laughed. The President smiled. Then came a story of the American, INIike 
 Kennedy, who, at one of Mr. Parnell's meetings in the States, handed him 
 "five dollars for bread and twenty for lead." "Was not that expression 
 repeated all over Ireland, as an argument for physical force?" exclaimed Sir 
 Richard, with tremendous emphasis. "Yes; by your side," retorted Mr. 
 Parnell, bowing. "What do you mean ? " " The Tory party in Ireland." 
 
 SEVENTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 May 2. 
 
 Are you quite sure, the Attorney-General asked Mr. Parnell, on resuming his 
 cross-examination, that you did not know before 1885 that Mr. Joseph Nolan 
 was a member of the "extreme," or physical-force party? Mr. Parnell was 
 sure of it ; he first heard of Mr. Nolan's Fenianism at the time of the appoint- 
 ment of the Select Committee to inquire into the admission of strangers into 
 the House of Commons. Then Mr. Parnell was questioned about Alex- 
 ander Sullivan. It was from the spy Beach, or Le Caron, that Mr. Parnell first 
 heard that Sullivan was a member of the Clan-na-Gael Society. In other 
 words, he could not have known it during his American tour, when Sullivan 
 made arrangements for some of Mr. Parnell's meetings. Moreover, said Mr. 
 Parnell, it was not true that Sullivan accompanied Mr. Parnell and Mr. Dillon 
 over the States; " we arranged our own meetings;" but Sullivan may have 
 arranged three or four meetings in the north-west. Condon, one of the 
 American Irish who organized the Parnell reception at Washington, was said 
 to be a member of the Clan-na-Gael ; but whether he was or not Mr. Parnell 
 did not know. As for Mr. Finerty, Mr. Parnell described him as a violent 
 person and " a notorious dynamite orator." This Mr. Finerty was an organizer 
 of the Parnell demonstration at Chicago. And now Sir Richard Webster 
 pounced upon Mr. Parnell. If that was Mr. Parnell's opinion, why did he 
 write to Finerty congratulating him upon his election to Congress, and de- 
 scribing it as a great boon to the Irish cause ? Mr. Parnell answered, in his 
 quiet way, that he wrote the letter in December, 1882, before he was aware 
 of the facts which led him in February, 1883, to denounce Ford and with him 
 all dynamiters, in his speech in the House of Commons. 
 
 The Attorney-General wanted to know if it was true that John Devoy was 
 associated with Mr. Davitt in establishing the Land League. Mr. Parnell 
 never knew that he was. If Devoy had been associated with the heads of the 
 League, the fact would have been awkward for the League, for Devoy was 
 accused of threatening a member of the Cabinet. And now it appeared that, 
 having heard of the plot, ]Mr. Parnell telegraphed to America, " You are re- 
 ported to have sent a threatening telegram to the Home Secretary. If true, 
 action most censurable; if untrue, cable contradiction." It was Sir Charles 
 Russell who suddenly produced this telegram in Court — the Attorney- General 
 rather warmly objecting, but intimating that he would reserve his " action on 
 that cable." 
 
 The Attorney-General now came to a more interesting subject — Mr. Parnell's 
 
222 Thursday] Diary of [May 2. 
 
 sins of omission, as the prosecution regards them. Had Mr. Tarnell kept his 
 followers in check, and condemned outrages and inflammatory speeches and 
 newspaper articles? Yes, said Mr. Parnell, in his easy manner, he had remon- 
 strated with his M.P.'s when their discretion failed to keep pace with their 
 tongues. There was Mr. ^Yilliam Redmond, for example ; and Mr. Parnell 
 pointed in a careless way, and with a good-natured smile, to Mr. Redmond, 
 who sat on the front bench, much interested in hearing himself summed up 
 by his chief. " I looked upon Mr. Redmond as being a very enthusiastic, 
 sincere young man — perhaps rash." Here Mr. Parnell, stroking his beard, 
 and fumbling about among his papers, proceeded to observe, in a sort of soli- 
 loquy which greatly amused his audience, that *' it was hard to put old heads 
 on young shoulders, but that that was a fault which time usually remedied if 
 people lived long enough." Over the smiling face of ]Mr. Redmond there 
 passed the blush of ingenuous youth. 
 
 So much for checking intemperate speech. What about outrages? "Did 
 you ever in Ireland denounce outrage ? " exclaimed the Attorney-General, 
 folding his arms and leaning his back against the bench. "Yes, certainly," 
 replied Mr. Parnell ; and Mr. Parnell, producing a pamphlet (a collection of 
 his speeches), from his black bag, looked up the denunciatory passages. He 
 read extracts from speeches at Bala, Swynford, Castlereagh, Xew Ross, 
 and other places in the year 1879 ^'^^ subsequently. His hearers were ad- 
 monished to act "within the law and the Constitution;" "above all, to 
 abstain from acts of violence, and to remember the teachings of Mr. Davitt;" 
 to remember that " the land movement was peaceful and constitutional." 
 
 Having done with his extracts, Mr. Parnell remarked that had he been then 
 aware (latter end of 1880) that crime was so largely on the increase he would 
 have spoken much more strongly against outrage. Though ]Mr. Parnell re- 
 turned from America in March or April of 1880, it was the month of September 
 before he crossed over to Ireland. And it was Mr. Davitt who told him how 
 outrages had been increasing. In one of the speeches he delivered at this 
 time in Ireland i\Ir. Parnell drew a picture of what the state of distressed 
 Ireland would then probably be if, as in the case of the famishing Ireland of 
 1846, there w^as no organization of the tenants : outrages and evictions would 
 be much more numerous. Mr. Parnell claimed for the League of 1879-80-81 
 the credit of two great services to Ireland — prevention of the assassination of 
 landlords, and prevention of evictions. In this part of his cross-examination 
 Mr. Parnell produced the manifesto which in February, 1 88 1, the Irish mem- 
 bers issued against crime : " Fellow-countrymen, — We adjure you to maintain 
 the noble attitude that has already secured your ultimate victory. Reject 
 every attempt to lead you to conflict, disorder, or crime." 
 
 At this stage Sir Richard Webster's most combative form of challenge — 
 the "Now, sir," with the admonitor}', rapid shake of the forefinger, and the 
 somewhat excited manner — became frequent, and all the more noticeable 
 because of its contrast with Mr. Parnell's iinperturbable calm. Had not Mr. 
 Parnell planned a No-Rent manifesto long before his arrest? No. But Patrick 
 Ford declared that the manifesto was ready months before Mr. Parnell's arrest ? 
 If so, Mr. Ford said what was untrue. But Mr. Egan distributed a manifesto 
 all over Ireland at the end of 1 881 ? The Attorney-General read it out. ' ' A very 
 condemnable manifesto," said ^Mr. Parnell ; "but I was in prison when Mr. 
 Egan issued it, and my colleagues and I sent !Mr. Egan instructions to with- 
 draw it, which I believe he did." Mr. Parnell admitted that he did not con- 
 demn it on his release, but, he said, by that time the matter had blown over. 
 But there were other publications in which Mr. Parnell was interested — articles 
 in United Ireland and in The Irishfuaji. The Attorney-General read out many 
 extracts from the early numbers of United Ireland, and I\Ir. Parnell admitted 
 that they were too strong, and that if he had been the writer he would have 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [May 3. 223 
 
 ■expressed himself differently. In several of these extracts Mr. Parnell indicated 
 the parts he did approve. For example, ' ' the destruction of Irish landlordism ; " 
 he himself desired the destruction of Irish landlordism, meaning the establish- 
 ment of a peasant proprietary at fair terms for the landlords. But then there 
 was The Irishman. And Sir Richard Webster read out a very long series of 
 extracts of a more or less violent character, some of them extremely violent. 
 One of these extracts called Carey, the informer, " a hypocrite and cunning 
 coward," and Brady, one of the Phoenix Park murderers, "a sincere, lion- 
 hearted enthusiast." " Do you approve of that ?" Sir Richard asked. "I do 
 not," was the answer. " Exaggerated," " I don't think that that is a proper 
 article," " undoubtedly violent," " highly objectionable," were some of Mr. 
 Parnell's comments on the Attorney-General's extracts from The Irishman. 
 But Mr. Parnell was a; shareholder of this very IrishDianl Yes, but The 
 Irishman, which lasted only a short time after the establishment of United 
 Ireland, v72iS, said Mr. Parnell, a paper which, "though disreputable, was 
 mischievous to our cause ; had I known that such and such articles were 
 appearing in it, I would have asked its editor to alter the tone ; we let it die 
 a natural death. We bought The Irishman for the simple reason that we 
 wished to terminate Mr. Pigott's journalistic career in Ireland." As Mr. 
 Parnell said this, he bowed slightly and smiled at Mr. Attorney. 
 
 SEVENTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 May 3. 
 
 jNIore extracts from The Irishman, followed by the Attorney-General's stock 
 question — What do you think of that, Mr. Parnell ? And Mr. Parnell's reply, 
 "reprehensible," "unjustifiable," or some equivalent word. As Mr. Parnell 
 repeatedly explained, with just an indication of boredom and in a variety of 
 ways, The Irishman was a paper to which he did not attach any importance. 
 He caused some amusement by remarking that he regarded I'he Irishman as 
 " a damjiosa hereditas " from poor Pigott. Two corrections which he wished 
 to make in his evidence of the preceding day showed how little knowledge he 
 had of The Irishmati and its articles. In his evidence of the previous day, he 
 stated that The Irishman died a natural death in about a year after the 
 establishment of United Ireland. But since four o'clock of Thursday afternoon 
 Mr. Parnell learned that The Irishman survived for a couple of years longer. 
 Again, in his evidence of Thursday Mr. Parnell said that Mr. W. O'Brien was 
 the editor. But in the interval Mr. Davitt pointed out to him his mistake : 
 Mr. James O'Connor was the editor. Said Mr. Parnell, The Irish^nan was 
 kept going solely for the purpose of giving O'Connor something to do : and 
 once upon a time Mr. Parnell requested that the "■ dafnnosa hereditas'' should 
 receive its coup de grace. " I assure you," said Mr. Parnell, addressing the 
 Attorney-General, who was very severe, "I assure you I knew nothing about 
 the policy of The Irishma7i at that or any other time. I suggested that it 
 should stop when we had organized Uiiited Irelatid. ... I assumed my wishes 
 had been carried out. I did not attach importance to it at any time." 
 
 The Attorney-General asked him if it was not the case that in United 
 Ireland, which was the organ of the League, there appeared paragraphs of the 
 same stamp as those of the paper (77^6" Irish??ian) v^hich. he repudiated. I 
 must compare the files, replied, in effect, Mr. Parnell. However, Mr. Parnell 
 admitted at once that there did appear in United Ireland d.xiic\Qi '' mongex 
 
224 Friday] Diary of [May 3. 
 
 than he approved." Whereupon the Attorney-General wanted to know why 
 he did not control or separate himself from, or repudiate "Sir. W. O'Brien and 
 his works. The general drift of Mr. Parnell's answers under this head was 
 pretty much the same as that of his answers on the same subject the day before 
 — when he said that all the members of the Land League did not think alike. 
 Both Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien, for example, held more advanced views 
 than ]Mr. Parnell himself did. As for " publicly repudiating '" the United 
 Ireland articles, Mr. Parnell explained — or, rather, remonstrated — that that 
 was not his way of dealing with his colleagues. Mr. Parnell declared that he 
 considered he did quite enough when he privately remonstrated against 
 extravagant expressions, and showed by his own public utterances that any such 
 expressions did not represent his own personal views. 
 
 And do you then disapprove of the use of physical force in support of the 
 aims of the Irish party? asked Sir Richard Webster. " Most undoubtedly," 
 answered ^Ir, Parnell, with great deliberation, " I have always disapproved of 
 it from the first time I entered public life. I have always thought that 
 physical force was useless and criminal. If the constitutional movement fail — 
 of which there is no present prospect — I should have to consider whether I 
 should not quit public life." But were Mr. Dillon's speeches always 
 constitutional? Had Mr, Parnell made himself acquainted with Mr. Dillon's 
 speeches? "I have never made a practice of reading anybody's speeches,"^ 
 quoth Mr. Parnell, smiling, " except my own " — an answer which was received 
 with a burst of laughter throughout the court. However, said Mr. Parnell., 
 "I have on several occasions taken grave exception to things which Mr. Dillon 
 said, and have remonstrated with him." Among the other Leaguers about 
 whose utterances the Attorney- General questioned ^Ir- Parnell was INIr. 
 Redpath. Mr. Parnell admitted at once that Mr. Redpath did deliver violent 
 speeches. " Some of them," said Mr. Parnell, were violent and reprehensible, 
 but they were limited in number. 
 
 In the afternoon portion of the sitting Mr. Parnell was questioned principally 
 about his views of the relationship betw^een crime and secret associations, and 
 about the disappearance of the League books. If, as the Attorney-General 
 said, Mr. Parnell held that secret societies caused crime, why did he in the 
 debates of i88i allege as an argument against the passing of the Coercion Act 
 that secret societies no longer existed ? Because, ]\Ir. Parnell replied, he 
 wanted to defeat the Bill; "I was trying to mislead the House so as to cut 
 aw^ay the ground from the feet of" the Government. " I believed," said Mr. 
 Parnell, after another question or two, that the League did put down secret 
 societies, but I exaggerated." The Leaguers, he added, could put down the 
 secret societies by influencing the class of discontented small tenant farmers 
 from which the societies were recruited. As for the missing books of the 
 League, he had been unable to trace them. Egan, he believed, had some in 
 America, but he thought they were unimportant. Mr. Parnell had asked Dr. 
 Kenny, ISIr. Campbell, and Mr. Harrington about them, but they could give 
 him no information. But he had not inquired from Mr. A. O'Connor, Phillips, 
 or ^^loloney. ^Ir. Moloney was the person in Vv-hose possession the books were 
 believed to have been last seen. " We attribute great importance to the pro- 
 duction of these books," said the President ; and 'Six. Parnell said he would 
 renew his endeavours to find them. Nor, said ]Mr. Parnell, was there any 
 trace of what had become of the letter-books, the cheque-books, and counter- 
 foils. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Coimnission. [May 7. 225 
 
 SEVENTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 May 7. 
 
 After the staggering effect which Mr. Parnell's frank and famous declaration 
 of last Friday produced in the minds of many excellent people, it was generally 
 expected that to-day's proceedings would open with an explanation by Mr. 
 Parnell of what he really meant to convey. The explanation was made as soon 
 as he entered the witness-box. What he said on Friday was that, in the debate 
 of February, 1 88 1, he deliberately used a misleading argument when he 
 maintained that the secret societies which the proposed Coercion Bill would 
 put down, did not exist. That is to say, not having the context of an eight- 
 year-old speech in his mind when the Attorney-General quoted the passage 
 about the non-existence of secret societies, Mr. Parnell, on the spur of the 
 moment, made that extremely candid admission. But since Friday afternoon 
 Mr. Parnell looked over the February speech ; he discovered what the 
 particular secret societies were which he then alleged to be no longer in 
 existence — they were, as he now explained to the judges, the Ribbon Societies, 
 which, as a matter of fact, had been crumbling away for some years before i88i. 
 " At the date of the February speech they were," added Mr. Parnell, "practically 
 non-existent. That was a fairly accurate representation of the state of existing 
 affairs, so far as I knew them, and not a misleading statement made either in- 
 tentionally or otherwise." "You must take the context of my speech," said 
 Mr. Parnell, at a later stage of his cross-examination by the Attorney-General, 
 "I was comparing the state of Ireland in 1881 (as regards secret societies) 
 with its state years before." On Friday afternoon Mr. Parnell said, and he re- 
 peated it yesterday, that in 1881 he expected a fresh devolopment of secret 
 organization, as a result of Coercion. A further reference to this matter will 
 be found in its proper place — in Sir Charles Russell's re-examination. 
 
 The misunderstanding having thus been cleared up, the Attorney-General 
 returned to the subject of payments from League funds — one of the most note- 
 worthy of which was the payment of 100 guineas for the defence of a 
 number of people accused at the Cork Assizes, in 1881, of moonhghting. 
 Speaking generally of such applications of League funds, Mr. Parnell said he 
 would approve of them if he thought that the law was "strained unduly," or 
 that the accused were innocent ; and he mentioned a particular case in which, 
 after his release from Kilmainham, he paid out of his own pocket for the defence 
 of a man whom he believed to be innocent and who finally was acquitted. 
 
 This led to a long series of questions about Mr. Parnell's cheque payments, 
 Mr. Parnell answering them bank-book in hand and with a bundle or two of 
 counterfoils and returned cheques beside him. The payments were to Mr. 
 Biggar, Mr. T. P. O'Connor, the Messrs. Redmond, Mr. Boyton, Mr. W. 
 O'Brien, and a great many others whom it is needless to enumerate. The 
 hundred-pound cheque to Mr. Boyton was to enable him, after his release from 
 Kilmainham, to furnish his house in London, Mr. Boyton being "in distress " 
 at the time. It was a gift from Mr. Parnell — not a farthing of it from Land 
 League funds. It now appeared that Mr. Parnell paid away, for the open 
 public work of the League, hundreds upon hundreds of pounds, thousands even, 
 from his own private means, when the League funds were low. "I paid 
 that;" "it has never been returned to me;" " it had nothing to do with 
 League funds " — Mr. Parnell was constantly saying in reply to Sir Richard 
 Webster. It may be said, in passing, that the inquiry into these financial transac- 
 tions threw a most interesting and pleasant light upon the personal rela- 
 tions between the leader of the Irish party and those connected with him. 
 
 Next followed a series of questions about the relations between him and certain 
 
 i6 
 
226 Wednesday] Diary of [May 8. 
 
 persons outside the Parliamentary organization, more particularly Mr. Egan and 
 Mr. Patrick Ford. "I have never heard," said Mr. Parnell, " that Mr. Egan 
 joined the Clan-na-Gael ; had he done so I should have regretted it." And 
 then, he added, with that simple frankness which impresses his audience as 
 much as his imperturbable calmness, "but I would have considered it natural," 
 under the circumstances of the time, such as the suppression of the League. 
 As for certain speeches which Ford attributed to Mr. Parnell, and which vSir 
 Richard Webster now read out in Court, Mr. Parnell declared, bluntly, 
 that Ford always "twisted" his speeches, "designedly," and put ideas into 
 them which their author never meant to convey. There was one speech 
 in particular, the warlike, sanguinary passages in which Mr. Parnell declared to 
 be the work of the reporter's imagination. 
 
 The Attorney-General's cross-examination ended at ten minutes past one. 
 Sir Charles Russell's re-examination, which immediately followed, turned 
 exclusively upon Mr. Parnell's relations with T/ie Irish World. The Attorney- 
 General had cited comparatively recent receipts from The Irish World, in 
 disproof of Sir Charles's former statement that the contributions through the 
 medium of The Irish World ceased in May, 1882. And Mr. Parnell, replying 
 to Sir Charles Russell, now proceeded to explain. The contributions from 
 May to October, 1882, through The Irish World, were those which continued 
 to be received from remote parts of America until the donors became aware of 
 Ford's hostility to Mr. Parnell. When, in consequence of the ParnelHte 
 victories at the end of 1885, Ford reverted to his old policy of friendship. The 
 World became, once more, the medium of contributions to the League funds ; 
 the first acknowledgment of a contribution was on the 26th of December, 1885. 
 In the interval — summer of 1882 to end of 1885 — Ford was steadily assailing 
 Mr. Parnell and his party. The Attorney-General had maintained that Mr. 
 Ford and the Parnell party were associated. And now, for nearly two hours, 
 Sir Charles Russell read Irish World articles, in which Mr. Parnell's policy 
 was described as " Parliamentary tomfoolery," " Parliamentary farce," and 
 Mr. Parnell's followers as persons without " brains " or " patriotism." Ford 
 furiously attacked the Arrears Bill, which Mr. Parnell was so anxious to carry 
 through. And he denounced Mr. Parnell's policy of a peasant proprietary — 
 "my settled policy," said INIr. Parnell, and "now the settled policy of the 
 State." "Without the Arrears Bill," said Mr. Parnell, " any attempt to put 
 down crime would have been useless," and he took the opportunity of 
 emphasising the explanation which he made at the beginning of the day's pro- 
 ceedings. He explained that though Ribbonism and Fenianism had ceased to 
 exist as organizations by the year 1881, there were isolated groups which, if an 
 Arrears Act was not passed, would be sure to be recruited by young men from 
 the very class of farmers which the Act was intended to pacify and benefit. 
 Mr. Parnell stated that at one time the American branch of the Irish Land 
 League contained a million and a half members. Ford's attacks, said Mr. 
 Parnell, weakened the League for a while ; but in time those who had with- 
 drawn from the League " came round again," and Patrick Ford with them. 
 
 SEVENTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 May 8. 
 
 Said Mr. Parnell, "not counting those at unimportant places, I delivered about 
 sixty speeches in the course of my American tour ; and of the sixty only four 
 or five have been put in by the Attorney-General." Of the three hundred set 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission, [May 8. 227 
 
 speeches delivered by him in Great Britain and Ireland from the beginning of 
 the agitation until now the proportion selected by the prosecution was still 
 smaller. The very first speech he delivered in America — which was in 
 Madison Square, New York — struck the keynote of all the speeches that 
 followed. In that speech Mr. Parnell said that not one cent of the money 
 collected during his tour would be devoted to the purpose of encouraging 
 armed resistance in Ireland. He said this because he understood that a great 
 many of his fellow-countrymen in America favoured, not recourse to constitu- 
 tional agitation, but appeal to force. INIr. Parnell was next asked by Sir 
 Charles Russell what he had to say aibout Le Caron's description of the 
 members and chairmen of the reception committees. Le Caron, it will be 
 remembered, thought that this, that, or the other committeeman was perhaps 
 respectable enough " for America." Mr. Parnell, whose turn now it was to 
 speak, thought the men who received him were " respectable " enough for any 
 society. At any rate, they kept their " gig." They turned out in their coaches 
 to do honour to their visitor. City Corporations offered him their hospitalities. 
 Generals in the great war, ex-Governors of States, ex-Ministers to European 
 courts, local legislators, men of science, men of letters, University professors — 
 in short, representatives of all the intelligent and "respectable" classes of 
 America were found upon the Parnell reception committees, or otherwise 
 engaged in according him a public welcome. In some towns the militia 
 marched and paraded, and in Chicago Mr. Parnell received the freedom of the 
 city. Was it true that the chairmen of these committees were members of the 
 Clan-na-Gael? The only ones whom Mr. Parnell believed to be members of 
 the society were Mr. Condon and Dr. Carroll. 
 
 This ended the American part of Sir Charles Russell's re- examination, and 
 Mr. Parnell was asked some questions about League work and expenditure, 
 and bookkeeping in Ireland. On his return from America, it was arranged 
 between him and Mr. Davitt that Mr. Davitt should proceed to the West to 
 denounce the outrages which, as Mr. Parnell learned from his friend, were on 
 the increase. Here Sir Charles Russell read out numerous extracts from 
 speeches of Mr. Davitt's, in which outrage was strongly condemned. But, as 
 Mr. Parnell here explained, mere denunciation of crime would have been fruit- 
 less among a people situated as the Irish peasantry then were ; and he and his 
 fellow-leaguers relied less upon denunciatory speeches than upon proselytism, 
 so to speak, from secret association to the ranks of the open association, the 
 Land League. And, added Mr. Parnell, we always did our best to get the 
 local Catholic clergy and other influential people to take the lead in this open 
 movement. All the Parnellite party worked openly and above board. " My 
 firm belief," said Mr. Parnell, "is that no member of our party who formerly 
 was a member of the Fenian Brotherhood ever re-entered the society after he 
 joined our ranks." 
 
 Of the opposition which at that time, end of 1880, he experienced from the 
 physical-force party, he gave a curious and amusing instance from Blarney, in 
 Cork. On his way from Blarney to Killarney be was stopped by the physical- 
 force men, who carried revolvers. A fight followed between them and Mr. 
 Parnell's friends, and the latter were allowed to continue their march only 
 when they surrendered "two hostages" to the enemy. At this part of the 
 story our old friend " Scrab's " name was re-introduced. After he was told 
 about Scrab's conduct at League meetings, Mr. Parnell gave instructions that 
 he should not be allowed to speak at them, whereupon the flow of Scrab's 
 oratory ceased. Scrab's figure has been flitting across the scene since October. 
 Perhaps we have seen the last of him. 
 
 Then there followed some questions about cheques, bank-books. League 
 ■cash-books, letters, &c. "Your lordships," said Mr. Parnell, " are perfectly 
 welcome to any letter I have ever written or ever received." He explained 
 
228 Wednesday] Diary of [May 8, 
 
 the nature of certain payments which in his cross-examination by the Attorney- 
 General he could not at the moment account for. Among them was a five- 
 pound cheque payment, about which Sir Richard Webster made inquiries the 
 day before. In the interval ]\Ir. Parnell found out all about it. " My sub- 
 scription to the Wicklow harriers," said Mr. Parnell. The President smiled, 
 and the Court laughed. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell ha^dng finished his re-examination, Sir Richard Webster 
 rose to put a few more questions which in the interval had suggested them- 
 selves to him. Mr. Parnell had spoken about the constitutional character of 
 his American speeches, and about anti-outrage speeches in Ireland. What 
 about a speech which, as was reported, he delivered in Liverpool shortly before 
 he started on his American tour, and in which he said that one hundred 
 thousand swords would leap out of their scabbards to defend Irish indepen- 
 dence ? Mr. Parnell remembered nothing about the swords and scabbards. 
 Nor did he know anything about the alleged Fenian antecedents of certain 
 persons who seemed to be his prominent supporters at the Liverpool meeting. 
 Of one such person he remarked that the only warlike accounts he had ever 
 heard of him were about his experiences in the Franco- German war. This, 
 and a similar answer about the warlike qualities of some one else, rather 
 irritated Sir Richard Webster. Not satisfied with Mr. Parnell's evidence 
 regarding the monetary transactions of the League, the Attorney-General 
 suggested that a sworn afifidavit should be taken of all financial documents, 
 pass-books, cheque-books, &c., in Mr. Parnell's possession, and bearing upon 
 this investigation. Sir James Hannen preferred that these documents should 
 first be examined by the Clerk of the Commission, in conjunction with Mr. 
 Asquith, representing the defendants, and ]\Ir. Graham, representing the 
 prosecution, Mr. Parnell, while complaining that the Attorney-General had 
 selected only a very few instances which appeared to suit his purpose, ex- 
 pressed his readiness to answer any question about any payment whatsoever. 
 Sir Charles Russell promptly backed up Mr. Parnell, and remarked upon the 
 "injustice" of the Attorney-General's procedure. To this criticism the 
 President warmly objected. Sir Charles, as warmly, replied that he would 
 maintain his opinion that Mr. Parnell should there and then be allowed to do 
 as he wished — to "explain the whole matter." "I submit, in fairness, it- 
 ought to be done," said Sir Charles, "We think it ought not to be done 
 now, but at a more convenient period," retorted the President, sharply. The 
 further consideration of this point was postponed, the President once more 
 remarking that Mr. Parnell should make an affidavit of all the documents in his 
 possession. 
 
 Then Archbishop Walsh entered the witness-box. He was examined by 
 Mr. Reid, Q.C But Mr. Reid had not proceeded far when the President 
 intervened. Mr. Reid's questions were designed to elicit the Archbishop's 
 opinion on the question as to whether such an organization as the Land League 
 was required under the circumstances of the time in Ireland. As the Arch- 
 bishop said, his very position in the Church, his relations with the clergy — who 
 were at the head of the movement all over Ireland — necessitated his acquiring 
 full information, and forming careful opinions on the subject. Sir Henry 
 James objected that the Archbishop's opinion was not what the Court wanted, 
 but the Archbishop's knowledge of facts upon which to base his opinion. 
 Mr. Reid retorted that the landlords and agents who had appeared as 
 witnesses for T/ie Times were allowed, and even invited, to state their- 
 opinions as to the results of League agitation. And he quoted, as cases 
 in point, the evidence of Mr. Leonard, and the evidence of Captain Slack. 
 Mr. Lockwood pressed the same argiunent, adding that a witness of the 
 authority of Archbishop Walsh should have the same liberty of stating a. 
 general opinion in reply to a general question, which had been enjoyed by the 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [May g. 229 
 
 landlord and agent witnesses. Mr. Biggar also struck in, "I have been from 
 the beginning a constant student of these proceedings, and have observed that 
 similar evidence has been given by the hirelings of the Government." "I 
 cannot allow such an expression as that," remarked Sir James Hannen. 
 "Then I will say officials," returned Mr. Biggar. " I maintain that if such 
 evidence as this is not allowed on our side, the whole inquiry will be a farce." 
 "Well, you have not assisted us," remarked the President, quietly. Their 
 lordships adjourned for a few moments to consider the case. On returning, 
 the President decided that his Grace's opinion — without preliminary facts 
 stated in court, on his Grace's own knowledge — was inadmissible as evidence. 
 But the matter was, Mr. Reid declared, of such serious import to the defence, 
 that, in consequence of their lordships' decision, he must ask for an adjourn- 
 ment_ in order that he might consult with his colleagues and reconsider his 
 position. The court, therefore, was adjourned at half-past three o'clock. 
 
 SEVENTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 May 9. 
 
 The cause of outrages, the influence of the League, the ethics of boycotting 
 (a slippery subject even for the subtlest priest), were the themes of Mr. Reid's 
 •examination and Mr. Atkinson's cross-examination of Dr. Walsh, Archbishop 
 of Dublin. The theory of the prosecution is that crime followed the founda- 
 tion of the League, as naturally as the fruit its seed. That's not it, says the 
 Archbishop ; crime was the offspring of eviction — and eviction, according to 
 the theory of the defence, was the penalty of inability to pay rack-rent. 
 
 Did the League denounce crime ? It did, said the Archbishop. He was 
 very positive on this point. And what was more, the League did succeed in 
 putting crime down. "I think so, decidedly," said Dr. Walsh. Dr. Walsh 
 ■credited the League with the new interest which eight or nine years ago the 
 Irish peasantry began to feel in Parliamentary politics. At the beginning of 
 this period, said the Archbishop, the people were generally indifferent — they 
 seemed to have lost all hope in constitutional action. But the League changed 
 all that — such, at any rate, was the Archbishop's belief. He had known only 
 one instance, in his diocese, in which a local branch of the League acted, he 
 would not say criminally, but foolishly, and perhaps dangerously. This was 
 the Clondalkin branch, in the suburbs of Dublin ; and its offence consisted in 
 a proposal to publish a "black list " — that is to say, a list of persons who 
 were not members of the League. This was at the end of September, 1885. 
 Dr. Walsh immediately communicated the news to Mr. T. Harrington, and, 
 said Dr. Walsh, the matter was no less promptly taken up at headquarters — • 
 in " O'Connell Street." O'Connell Street is the patriotic name for Sackville 
 Street — which one renowned traveller, at least, has called the finest street in 
 Europe. When you hear a Dublin " boy," or any other Irish " boy " — lay or 
 ecclesiastic — say O'Connell Street instead of Sackville Street, you put him 
 •down for a Nationalist of the Nationalists. 
 
 The foregoing was the substance of Dr. Walsh's answers to Mr. Reid. And 
 now Mr. Atkinson tried what he could make of his Grace. The Archbishop's 
 impressions about secret societies corresponded with Mr. Parnell's. But did 
 the League act as constitutionally as the Archbishop alleged ? Did not the 
 League " prohibit " the peasantry going into the Land Courts created under 
 the Land Act of 1881 ? The League " advised " them, replied Dr. Walsh, 
 
230 Thursday] Diary of [May g. 
 
 with a polite little bow, and proceeded to say that events proved the wisdom 
 of the advice. What about the strong rhetoric of United Ireland and The 
 Irishman ? Was it constitutional ? The Archbishop declared frankly, just as 
 Mr. Parnell had done before him, that there were things in United Ireland 
 which he did not approve. The Archbishop did not like its "intemperate 
 personal attacks;" but, said he, "I do not read United Ireland regularly." 
 As for poor Pigott's old paper, Ike Irish?na?i, he was surprised to learn from 
 Mr. Parnell's evidence that The Irish/nan survived so long as it did. " Ap- 
 prove of its articles?" Mr. Atkinson asked. "Approve! Oh, no I " ex- 
 claimed his Grace, sharply ; ' ' they were abominable. The teaching of The 
 Irishman was at variance with the teaching of the League." 
 
 Did his Grace approve of boycotting persons who took evicted farms ? 
 Here Mr. Atkinson entered upon the delicate — at a later stage in his cross- 
 examination he called it the " metaphysical" — part of the agrarian question. 
 The Archbishop was ready with his distinctions. "Eviction? What sort 
 of an eviction do you mean, Mr. Atkinson ? a just one or an unjust one ? 
 And " boycotting " — what sort of boycotting ? " " Come, come, your Grace ; I 
 mean what's commonly called boycotting." " But many things are commonly 
 called boycotting in Ireland," quoth his Grace. If Mr. Atkinson meant by 
 boycotting a form of intimidation, then his Grace was strongly against boy- 
 cotting. He would ever condemn it. But boycotting without intimidation — 
 boycotting as a form of " exclusive dealing" — was another thing. And .thea 
 the Archbishop introduced a distinction even as to exclusive dealing. To sum 
 up several answers on this head, his view was that the boycotting, without 
 intimidation, say of persons who profitted by " unjust " e\'ictions, was not a 
 crime, but a means of preventing crime. 
 
 Father O'Connell, who followed Dr. Walsh in the box, had for years beea 
 parish priest in one of the poorest districts of Connemara. He came from 
 Letterfrack, county Galway, and many of his parishioners lived on the estate 
 of Mrs. Blake, of Connemara, the clever witness who gave her evidence ia 
 the earlier part of this trial. Father O'Connell sketched rapidly, and with, 
 quite sufticient vividness, an Irish "interior" in his poverty-stricken parish — 
 the wretched cabin, the food of potatoes or of boiled seaweed — "a slow 
 poison," he called it — even the "sacks" in which the family slept, without 
 any other covering. Father O'Connell had anything but a flattering account 
 to give of clever, energetic Mrs. Blake. Help her tenants in their distress 
 at the time they were kept alive by famine funds? No, "quite the con- 
 trary." What did he mean by "quite the contrary?" asked J\Ir. Lockwood, 
 who was examining him. " Why," said Father O'Connell, " she used (1878- 
 1882) to take a third of their kelp which they fished out from the sea." (Here he 
 described how the Connemara folk dragged in their seaweed. ) Not until 
 October, 1880, was a branch of the Land League established in that quarter 
 of Connemara, and Father O'Connell thought it was then high time to estab- 
 lish one, because he was " perfectly certain " that many of Mrs. Blake's 
 tenants were unable to pay their rents. It was Father O'Connell himself 
 who drew up the tenants' memorial. 
 
 In the earlier part of the trial it was stated by a Times witness that the 
 League branch used to meet in the house of ]Mrs. Walsh, the mother of the 
 young man who was executed on a charge of having murdered a man named 
 Lyden. This Father O'Connell emphatically denied. "The story was 
 absolutely false." As he showed, in his cross-examination by Sir Henry 
 James, this branch of the League had little more than a nominal existence — 
 " it never even met." As to the other persons who were tried on the charge 
 of conspiracy to murder. Father O'Connell either denied that they were 
 Leaguers or said he knew nothing of the matter. As he had already said, 
 the branch was little more than nominal. This was more fully explained ia 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [May lo. 231 
 
 the cross-examination by Sir Henry James. To him Father O'Connell de- 
 scribed how the Lyden murder was denounced by Father McAndrew, president 
 of the branch, and how he himself had denounced from the ahar another 
 murder, that of a man named Cavanagh. He could not account for the mur- 
 ders. All he could say was that the crimes were sincerely condemned by his 
 parishioners. "There was not among them the slightest sympathy with the 
 murderers ; " on the contrary, " they were extremely shocked." 
 
 Then Father Considine, of Ardrahan, county Gal way, gave alike testimony as 
 to the effect produced in his parish by the murder of the land agent, Mr. Burke, 
 which murder, he said, was perpetrated in June, 1882, after the suppression of 
 the Land League, and six months before the foundation of the National League. 
 Father Considine described how "I said mass for Mr. Burke's soul" — the 
 ordinary Sunday mass — before the whole congregation ; how immediately after 
 service a public meeting was held "in the house of God " to express public 
 detestation of the crime. Another glimpse of Irish life. 
 
 SEVENTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 May 10. 
 
 Seven witnesses, including one bishop and three priests, were examined and 
 cross-examined. The first of the seven was Father Considine, of county 
 Galway, in the course of whose examination-in-chief the Court adjourned 
 yesterday. The main interest in Father Considine's examination was centred 
 in the Hughes incident. Hughes, it may be remembered, was a Times witness 
 who, it was expected, would testify that the League branch of which Father 
 Considine was President (the Ardrahan branch) had released him from a boy- 
 cott, "for a consideration," and that the proposal of such conditional release 
 was made by Father Considine himself. Hughes, however, when put into the 
 witness-box, declared that Father Considine did not ask him for anything; that, 
 in fact, the offer was a voluntary one on Mr. Hughes's own part. So that the 
 cross-examination to-day of Father Considine was to a large extent a* scrutiny 
 by TheTimes counsel of the credibility of one of their former witnesses. Mr. 
 Reid's examination of Father Considine lasted only a few minutes. "Mr. 
 Hughes," said the witness, "came to me of his own accord, and asked me to 
 intercede with the Leaguers to release him from his boycott, and I promised 
 him I would do my best. It was then," said Father Considine, " that he offered 
 to give up the money he had made by letting out his cars for eviction work " 
 fthe action for which he was boycotted), and it was only when this voluntary 
 offer was made that the witness suggested to his repentant visitor what he might 
 do with the money. 
 
 Father Considine repeated this account of the matter in his cross-examination 
 by Mr- Murphy. Mr. Hughes, he said, voluntarily made the offer, in order, 
 as Mr. Hughes himself expressed it, to signify the sincerity of his regret for 
 having let out his cars for any such purpose ; besides, Mr. Hughes wished to 
 " stand well with the people." Then Mr. Murphy turned to Father Considine's 
 own oratory as a League politician, and to the ethics of the boycott. Father 
 Considine had declared that people in his parish never were pressed to join the 
 League. Mr. Murphy quoted a strong extract from a speech of Father Consi- 
 dine's, in which extract people who refused to join were consigned to the "cold, 
 deep damnation of disgrace." Mr. Murphy threw himself into an attitude ex- 
 pressive of horror, and asked Mr. Considine what he thought of such rhetoric. 
 
232 Friday] Diary of [May lo. 
 
 There were several questions to the same effect, and as many answers — the gist 
 of which appeared to be that the bite was not meant to be as bad as the bark. 
 Father Considine further observed that in later years he made use of less in- 
 temperate language. Whereupon Mr. Murphy produced some of Father 
 Considine's later expressions about grabbers being amongst the worst of their 
 kind, and about men who kept aloof from the League being as condemnable 
 even as landlords themselves. "Strong," Father Considine admitted, but he 
 meant it only "for moral suasion." Did he consider boycotting moral? It 
 depended on the kind of boycotting. I would " avoid " the grabber, said 
 Father Considine —avoid him because of his avarice, but "I would not stai"ve 
 him." " What ! have you not heard of funerals being boycotted ? " Mr. Murphy 
 exclaimed. But Father Considine had no personal knowledge of funeral boy- 
 cotting in his parish. Like the Archbishop of Dublin, who was examined the 
 •day before, Father Considine approved only of the " negative " boycott ; when 
 it meant intimidation, he would have none of it ; and as for the form of boycott 
 which meant deprivation of the necessaries of life, he considered it " wicked 
 and sinful." " So," exclaimed Mr. Murphy, " you draw a distinction between 
 intimidation and making things disagreeable." " I think there is a distinc- 
 tion," was the emphatic reply. Finally, Father Considine was asked some 
 questions about the murder of Mr. Burke, near Loughrea. He replied that 
 the constable told a falsehood who, in the earlier portion of the trial, said that 
 people on the roadside deliberately trod upon the blood of the murdered 
 man. 
 
 The murder of Mr. Burke and his companion, Corporal Wallis, was the 
 principal theme of the examination of the next two witnesses, the first of whom 
 was Stephen Tarpey, of Ballyglass, county Galway. He was examined by Mr. 
 Hart. Stephen Tarpey was returning from mass when he heard the news that 
 a murder had just been committed at a spot about two miles distant. He 
 went to the spot at once, saw some people about, but saw nobody behave in 
 the inhuman manner described by the policeman, nor did he hear any "jeer- 
 ing." And the Sunday following, said Mr. Tarpey, the murder was denounced 
 by Father Considine from the altar ; and at an open meeting, which was held 
 in the chapel immediately after mass, a resolution was passed, expressing the 
 hope that the perpetrators of the crime might be brought to justice. 
 
 This corresponded with Father Considine's own statement of the day 
 before. It should be said that Mr. Tarpey was a member of the League. Mr. 
 Tarpey was pounced upon in cross-examination by Sir Henry James, for having 
 said that he arrived at the spot in about a quarter of an hour after the murder 
 was committed. How did he know that the murder was committed a quarter 
 of an hour before ? for Tarpey was coming av/ay from Mass at the time. 
 Evidently Mr. Tarpey, who was a slow, somewhat shy witness, was only 
 speaking in a vague way about the impression left upon his mind by informants 
 whom he met on the road. I remained an hour on the spot, said this witness ; 
 and I did not see anybody treading in the blood. The next witness, Patrick 
 Joyce, assisted the police in carrying the bodies. He was several hours about 
 the spot, and at one time there were between thirty and forty people there ; 
 but he saw no signs of unseemly behaviour. The murders, he added, caused 
 " sadness and regret " in the locality. 
 
 Mr. T. Harrington, M.P., examined the next witness, Mr. Patrick Cawley, 
 of Craughwell, a dreary poverty-stricken little village in Galway — between 
 Loughrea and Athenry. In order to show their lordships what the distress in 
 the district was in 1879-80— distress, on the defence theor}', leading through 
 eviction to crime — Mr. Harrington questioned the witness about the famine 
 contributions received by him, as Land League treasurer, from a great many 
 quarters. INIr. Cawley is at the present time secretary of the local branch of 
 the National League. In all his experience he had not known, he said, that a 
 
Friday'] ' the Parnell Commission, [May lo. 233 
 
 single penny had been spent in getting up outrage. There never was a 
 suggestion of crime among the local leaguers ; " they would not listen " to any 
 such thing, said the witness, firmly. Had there been no League, said he, in 
 reply to a question by Mr. Reid, outrage would have been more frequent. 
 
 Then came Dr. McCormack, Bishop of Galway. Mr. Lockwood examined 
 him. The bishop described what he had seen of the hardship and misery of 
 peasant life in Western Ireland. There was not the smallest exaggeration in 
 it. Rather the reverse. He mentioned, briefly, how bog-land was reclaimed 
 by the peasants without any help from the landlords, the largest of whom, 
 Lord Dillon, has "always been an absentee." This absentee landlord has 
 about four thousand five hundred tenants in county Mayo. Distress, said the 
 bishop, went on increasing until 1879-80, when, but for the establishment of 
 the Land League, clearances and outrages would have followed as in the time 
 of the great famine, thirty-five years before. In spite of the distress in 1879-80, 
 said the bishop, the landlords gave their tenants no help whatever. 
 
 All these details were given, in answer to Mr. Lockwood, in order to show 
 that, independently of the Land League, there existed a state of things out of 
 which disturbance and crime would naturally spring. Between the years 1879 
 and 1882 Dr. McCormack was consulted by Mr. Lowther (the Irish Secretary) 
 and Lord Spencer ; both of whom he assured that the League, by organizing 
 the open expression of discontent, had been instrumental in destroying secret 
 — in other words, criminal — societies. But what about the League and boy- 
 cotting, asked Mr. Atkinson, referring the Bishop of Galway to the Pope's own 
 rescript against what is "commonly called boycotting " in Ireland. What was 
 the meaning of it ? The bishop, to judge from his manner, must have thought 
 that the best man to answer that question was the Pope himself. But as the 
 Pope could not be put into the witness-box, the bishop made the best of it. 
 He thought " negative " boycotting was not incompatible with the rescript — ■ 
 the boycotting, which meant shunning a person guilty of injustice. In the 
 bishop's opinion there may be justifiable boycotting, as there may be unjustifiable 
 eviction. His Holiness's rescript was clearly against intimidation, the bishop 
 thought. 
 
 Would he approve of boycotting — even "negative" boycotting — in the 
 House of God ? — No. But upon this subject of boycotting, Mr. Reid, when 
 the next witness came on, made the general statement, that counsel and wit- 
 nesses for the defence did not deny that, within certain limits, the practice had 
 been advocated by the local League branches. Intimidation and outrage were, 
 said Mr. Reid, the limits. Father Fahy, of Gort, in Galway, was in the box 
 when Mr. Reid made that observation. Father Fahy flatly contradicted the 
 story which had been told about him by a Times witness early in the trial — 
 namely, that he had endeavoured to procure the removal from the country of a 
 young man who was prosecuting several people charged with outrage. Father 
 Maloney, who followed Father Fahy, hailed from Kinvara, at the head of 
 Galway Bay. As president of the local branch of the Land League seven 
 years ago, and of the National branch now, Father Maloney declared that all 
 his respectable parishioners were members of the organization, and that he did 
 not believe any of them — directly or indirectly — connived at crime of any kind 
 whatever. 
 
234 Tuesday] Diary of [May 14. 
 
 SEVENTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 May 14. 
 
 Father Maloney, the Galway priest, reappearing in the witness-box, was- 
 cross-examined by Sir Henry James, principally about the books kept by the 
 Land and National League branches of which he has been president. Father 
 Maloney frankly admitted that he had presided, in the autumn of 1885, at a 
 National League meeting at which a resolution was passed disapproving the 
 conduct of a man named Thomas Conolly, in giving information to an evicting 
 landlord. In about two years and a half after that, Conolly was shot at. But^ 
 said Father Maloney, the attempt on Conolly's life was made outside our 
 district. According to Father Maloney's account of the matter, the bark 
 of the local League branch was always worse than its bite ; its strong 
 *' resolutions " — and some of them were very strong — were a letting-ofF of 
 rhetorical steam. 
 
 Among strongly- worded resolutions recorded in T/ie Tiiam News was one 
 to the effect that ' ' We condemn the dirty, ^selfish, ignorant, unprincipled 
 scoundrels," &c. Sir Henry James appeared to be shocked at the fact that 
 Father Maloney, a priest and a man of education, should have presided at a 
 meeting in which resolutions of that kind were passed. Nevertheless Father 
 Maloney in the witness-box quietly remarked that the persons called dirty, 
 selfish, ignorant, &c., had been guilty of the conduct of which they were 
 accused. The really significant part of Father Maloney's answer was that in 
 which he said : "We perhaps thought we did our duty by merely passing the 
 resolution." The meeting appeared to have let off its steam, and to have 
 taken no further steps against the "dirty" and "ignorant" "scoundrels." 
 Finally Father Maloney declared he would not approve of boycotting which, 
 proceeded to the extremity of withholding the necessaries of life. 
 
 Mr. John Kennedy, Town Councillor of Loughrea, was the next witness. 
 He came from a "hot" district — wherein seven murders were perpetrated 
 within a period of fourteen months during the disturbed years 1880-2. But of 
 the seven murders there was only one of which Ivlr. Kennedy had anything to 
 say — and even that was extremely little. This was the murder of Sergeant 
 Linton, near the police barracks, in the town of Loughrea. Living, as he 
 had done, for thirty years in Loughrea, Mr. Kennedy could think of no 
 reason for attributing the murder to agrarian causes. The police- sergeant, he 
 said, was an over-officious person, who was always spying about shops — 
 especially the spirit shops, on Sundays — and he pursued his espionage in dis- 
 guise ; and the persons who were tried for his murder were a grocery and 
 spirit seller and his wife, who were both acquitted. 
 
 The next witness was much more interesting. He threw some unpleasant 
 light upon the Arcadia of the prosecution. The great distress in 1S79-80, in 
 and about Tuam, reminded him of the distress of 1850, when the people were 
 dying of hunger. I was the relieving officer at that time in Tuam district, said 
 this witness, Bartholomew Canavan ; and he described how, on one occasion, 
 he "met " two dead bodies on the road ; and how, on another, he was present 
 at the inquest on the bodies of two children, who, having left the workhouse, 
 took refuge in a barn, where they died of starvation, and where their remains 
 were partly eaten by rats. Coming to a later period, relieving officer Canavan 
 told how a Tuam landlord, named Botteril, began raising his rents previously 
 to the later period of scarcity, 1879-80, and the rise of the Land League. 
 Here are a few illustrative figures : 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [May 14. 235 
 
 Original Rents. Raised to. 
 
 i; s. d. £ s. d. 
 
 II 18 I 17 o o 
 
 6 14 II II o o 
 
 701 ... ... II 7 o 
 
 182 273 
 
 150 2 17 o 
 
 100... ... ... ... ... ... 200 
 
 740... ... ... ... ... ... ... 18 o o 
 
 6 12 O ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 12 O O 
 
 730 15 o o 
 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor, who was examining Mr. Canavan, said that the 
 average increase was about 60 per cent. What had this landlord done to- 
 improve the holdings which he rack-rented at this terrific rate? Nothing, was 
 the witness's answer. Botteril's tenants were among the poorest in the 
 district ; and when the hard times of 1879-80 came, they were all on relief — 
 all, " with the exception of one." 
 
 Mr. Canavan was president of the Land League branch, which was founded 
 in August, 1880; and when the National League branch was founded he be- 
 came its secretaiy. So Mr. Canavan claimed to know what he was talking 
 about. He said there was no truth whatever in the story told by a Times 
 witness that the landlord Botteril was summoned before a League court to 
 explain his conduct. He could not possibly have been summoned — for the 
 best of reasons, which was that the branch never held a court. Moreover, 
 Mr. Canavan declared that he himself took this rack-renting landlord's part 
 against a herd whom he dismissed. Our branch connected with crime? 
 Never ! exclaimed Mr. Canavan, emphatically. We expelled some of our 
 members who broke the rules, said Mr. Canavan ; but that was all. And now 
 Mr. Canavan produced his books, Land League books, and National League 
 books — the first of their kind produced in court. The books when examined 
 were found to contain" minutes of meetings — including resolutions against 
 offending Leaguers — and entries of expenditure on furniture, rent, printing, 
 delegations to Dublin, &c. There w^ere entries about certain poor people who 
 pawned their clothes to pay their rent. Some of the resolutions against people 
 who failed to stand fast by their fellow-leaguers in their contest with the 
 landlord were very amusing. Some of these backsliders were described as 
 " vultures flying about the parish in search of small pieces of pasture land and 
 gobbling it up with tiger-like ferocity." This specimen of the rhetoric of 
 rural Ireland greatly amused Mr. Canavan's audience. The President himself, 
 as he took a note of it, laughed outright. The passage was read out, not by 
 counsel for the prosecution, but by Sir Charles Russell, who fully enjoyed the 
 fun of the thing. 
 
 But the prosecuting lawyers had their turn in due course. Mr. Atkinson 
 unearthed a passage in which certain weak-kneed leaguers were denounced as 
 "rotten limbs" that ought to be cut off, and another passage in which the 
 particular person abused first as a vulture, and next as a tiger, was disposed of 
 as a " snail " who had "drawn in his horns." 
 
 The next witness, Mr. Edward Jennings, a secretary of the Land League of 
 Clonbur, had been subpoenaed by The Times, evidently for the purpose of 
 giving evidence about the murder of Lord Mountmorres. But The Tiines 
 counsel never called him, though he was in attendance for about five weeks. 
 Mr. Jennings, now appearing as a Parnellite witness, ridiculed the notion that 
 the League encouraged crime ; he rather thought the League put crime down. 
 "We had no boycotting," he continued; "and with the only case of it of 
 which I was accused I had no more to do than your lordship on the bench." 
 This to the President. Before he left the box he gave some description of the 
 great distress which began in his district shortly before the Land League branch, 
 was founded in it. 
 
236 Wednesday] Diary of [May 15. 
 
 Lastly, there entered the witness-box Mr. John Monaghan, farmer, of 
 Oughtcrard, in Connemara. A stout, rudfly-faced, white-headed, frank and 
 honest-looking farmer, of sixty-five, was Mr. John ^Nlonaghan. His service in 
 the witness-box was to lift the veil which T/ie Times witnesses had dropped 
 over pre-League Ireland. He gave us a mournful picture of the Arcadia of 
 the landlords and their agents. He quoted instances from the good old times, 
 when if a man failed to pay his rent by three o'clock on rent-day he was fined 
 twelve shillings ; or had his rent raised if he sheltered evicted tenants. 
 Martin Molloy's rent was raised from ;^5 to^^y los. for that very reason. Mike 
 Troon suffered still more heavily for his humanity. The President was so 
 impressed with these statements that he stopped the witness for a moment, and 
 asked for details. Did he remember the great famine? Of course. Tell us 
 what you saw, said Mr. T. Harrington, who was examining him. And forth- 
 with Mr. Monaghan proceeded to describe the Arcadia, in which, according 
 to the landlords and their agents, no causes of crime and outrage existed before 
 the advent of the League. He said that he saw " Bianconi's " cars upset by 
 corpses lying on the road. Then he went on to describe a dead mother and 
 her child. Mr. -Monaghan faltered. His voice grew husky. Then he 
 stopped. " The old man is ciying," some one whispered. " The old man" 
 told the judges how the child sought nourishment from its dead mother's 
 breast; and how they put "the mother and the baby in one coffin." "I 
 myself," said Mr. Monaghan, "brought thirty dead bodies to the grave in 
 bags." To most people in Probate Court No. i it must have been a new 
 experience to see " the old man cr)dng " over a story of Irish famine. But 
 they may often see it nowadays — at eviction time, when the carpenters are 
 laying the foundations of a League "hut," and the old parish priest, giving 
 his blessing to the undertaking, makes allusion to the past. People thought, 
 said Mr. INIonaghan, that what happened more than thirty years before might 
 happen again in 1880. 
 
 EIGHTIETH DAY. 
 
 May 15. 
 
 Yesterday's investigation was confined to the country round about 
 Woodford and Loughrea — the Clanricarde region it might be called ; the 
 "hot" district of Ireland. More than half the day was occupied with the 
 examination and cross-examination of Father Egan, parish priest of Dunivy, 
 near Loughrea. Father Egan, a man apparently of about thirty-five years of 
 age, is a good specimen of the younger race of Irish priests, who are as active 
 in politics as they are in the cure of souls. Father Egan began by describing 
 the distressed condition of the Woodford-Loughrea region in 1879-S0, when, a 
 newly-appointed curate, he began to take an active interest in politics. Ac- 
 cording to Father Egan's testimony, the state of Loughrea at that time must 
 have been about as bad as that which the preceding witness, Mr. jNIonaghan, 
 alleged to have existed during the same period in Connemara. Among Father 
 Egan's first experiences as a curate were some visits to starving dying patients, 
 whom he found half naked. But for the relief funds which were started, said 
 Father Egan, numbers of people would have died of hunger. There were 
 many relief funds. There was the fund of eight or nine thovisand pounds 
 collected by Dr. Duggan, the venerable Bishop of Clonfert, who, but for weak 
 health, would have been in London to give evidence before the Commission. 
 Most of that money went, said Father Egan, to the relief of the tenants of a 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [May 15. 237 
 
 landlord of whom the British public have already heard more than enough — 
 Lord Clanricarde. There was the Duchess of Marlborough's Fund, distri- 
 buted by the landlords. Thirdly, there was the poor law relief Fourthly, 
 there were the American and other foreign remittances, upon which many 
 a poor family depended, in the last resort, for rent payments to the Clanri- 
 cardes and for escape from the last and worst of indignities — refuge in the 
 workhouse. 
 
 Father Egan was president of the Loughrea Branch of the Land League, 
 and, in subsequent years, treasurer of the Woodford Branch of the National 
 League. It was during his residence in Loughrea that Mr. Blake, Lord 
 Clanricarde's agent, was murdered. And now Father Egan was invited to 
 give his version of the story which Mrs. Blake had given months before in the 
 witness-box. It will be remembered that Mrs. Blake gave anything but a 
 pleasant account of Father Egan's conduct on the day of the murder — ^June 
 29, 1882. Father Egan's description differed widely from Mrs. Blake's. 
 He described how he, in company with his younger brother and a Mr. Bowes, 
 was driving into Loughrea from a distant parish ; how a runaway horse and cart 
 came dashing down the road after them ; how Mr. Bowies jumped off to stop it ; 
 how Father Egan, leaving his own car in charge of his younger brother, followed 
 Mr. Bowes ; how he found Ruane, Mr. Blake's driver, in a dying state ; how he 
 instantly gave him absolution ; and how then, at Mrs. Blake's request, he went 
 further up the road "as quickly as possible," and found the body of Mr. 
 Blake. " We heard no shots," said Father Egan; and we had "no idea of 
 what had happened." According to INIrs. Blake's story, Father Egan was 
 quite indifferent — did nothing. "There is not the slightest foundation," con- 
 tinued Father Egan, "for the statement that I showed no sympathy for Mrs. 
 Blake." He said that he called more than once at the hotel to which Mrs. 
 Blake was conveyed after her husband's murder, and that on several occasions 
 Mrs. Blake's sister and Mrs. Blake herself thanked him for his services. 
 Finally, on the following Sunday, Father Egan and other priests, as well as 
 Dr. Duggan, bishop of the diocese, denounced the murder. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson's cross-examination of Father Egan lasted fully two hours. It 
 was principally occupied with the story of the process-server Finlay, who was 
 murdered at Woodford in the summer of 1 886. The Finlay murder story, as 
 told long ago by one of T/ie Times witnesses, Sergeant Coursey, is one of the 
 most dismal, brutal, and disgusting yet heard before the Commission. It is 
 the story of the "mock funeral," of boycotting the widow, of heaping insults 
 upon her, of priestly refusal to assist the widow in procuring a coffin for her 
 husband's remains. Of this story, except to a certain' extent the last part 
 of it. Father Egan gave a very different version to the police-sergeant's. 
 •'Every trumpery" incident, said Father Egan, was exaggerated into a tale 
 of insult against Finlay's widow. As for the " mock funeral," Father 
 Egan did not believe any such thing ever took place ; at any rate, he was 
 absent from the parish at the time it was alleged to have happened. It is 
 quite true, said Father Egan, that Finlay's widow went about the Woodford 
 streets cursing me and other leading people of the place, and that must have 
 had something to do with the boycott to which she was subjected ; but she 
 afterwards expressed her regret to me for what she had done, and now she 
 regards me as her best friend. But the particular point on which Mr. 
 Atkinson concentrated his strength was the coffin story. Sergeant Coursey did 
 call upon Father Egan and Father Coen to assist him in procuring a coffin ; 
 and as certainly the two priests refused. But Father Egan explained that the 
 police-sergeant must have known better than he did himself where he could 
 get what he wanted. As for the police story that Mr. Keary, the League 
 treasurer, refused to supply one, Father Egan explained that Mr. Keary was 
 neither a carpenter nor an undertaker, and that a coffin was more easily pro- 
 
23 S Wednesday] Diary of [May 15. 
 
 curable in the neighbouring towns of Portumna and Loughrea, respectively 
 ten and seven miles distant. 
 
 " Did you suggest that course to Sergeant Coursey?" Mr. Atkinson asked. 
 Father Egan was not quite sure, but he thought he did. At the same time, 
 he admitted that if the sergeant had addressed him and Father Coen in 
 " a more becoming manner," they might have been more helpful to him. This 
 admission gave Mr. Atkinson an opportunity — of which he made the best — to 
 come down upon Father Egan with a string of ironical, denunciatory questions 
 about the rival claims of "offended dignity " and Christian duty — in this case 
 the duty of a priest. Father Egan stood Mr. Atkinson's thunder with com- 
 posure, repeating his statement that he did not think the sergeant would 
 experience any difficulty in procuring a coffin, and that he really thought the 
 sergeant's request was meant as a " trap." Then as to his non-attendance at 
 Finlay's funeral. Father Egan explained that this was owing to mis -information 
 regarding the time at which the interment was to take place But for that 
 accident, either he or Father Coen would have been in attendance. Finally, 
 as to his share in the Clanricarde evictions of 1886, Father Egan declared 
 frankly that he was all along in favour of passive resistance — as by barricading 
 — but that he was from first to last opposed to the active defence of fortified 
 houses by the young men of the neighbourhood. 
 
 In the evidence of the next witness, Mr. Mclnerney, a solicitor, there was 
 one statement which bore directly upon the history of the Loughrea-Woodford 
 district. Mr. Mclnerney, who had been engaged in contesting (on the part of 
 the ratepayers) a number of claims of compensation for malicious injury, said 
 that the claim in the case of Sergeant Linton (murdered at Loughrea) was 
 refused on the ground that the crime was unconnected with agrarian disputes. 
 Then came another of the leaders of the "Woodford movement," as it is 
 called in Western Ireland — Mr. John Roche. He was questioned about 
 "Doctor" Tully's "pills," and the Woodford "Tenants' Defence Association," 
 and the Finlay mock funeral. The "Doctor" was a boatbuilder, who owed 
 his nickname of "Doctor" to his habit of calling boycotting, and anti-landlord 
 combination, medicine. It was an utterly false story, said Mr. Roche, that 
 the "Doctor" spoke of "leaden pills." "He was the most harmless 
 and inoffensive man I ever came across," said Mr. Roche. "The Tenants' 
 Defence Association," of which Mr. Roche was chairman, was, said he, a 
 means of averting eviction and of preventing crime. The Association was, in 
 fact, the precursor of the Plan of Campaign. Mr. Roche's account of its rise 
 and progress corresponded with that given in one of TAe Daily News letters from 
 Ireland in the autumn of 1887. " Our whole object," said Mr. Roche, " was 
 to bring about a compromise between landlords and tenants ; " and he pointed 
 out that of the dozen or so estates, round Woodford, the only ones upon which 
 disturbances had occurred were the three whose landlords refused to negotiate 
 with their tenants. One of the three was Lord Clanricarde, and Mr. Roche 
 now made it known that this landlord had just declined the suggestion of his 
 tenants to follow the Vandeleur example of arbitration. As for the Finlay 
 "mock funeral," the whole story was, according to Mr. Roche, a mere in- 
 vention. The alleged funeral procession was, he said, only a crowd of people 
 who were helping persons about to be evicted, and who were displaying a 
 board, or boards, decorated wdth a goat's head, and inscribed " Down with 
 the landlords." The demonstration "had nothing to do" with the Finlay 
 funeral. 
 
Thursday'] the Parnell Commission. [May i6. 239 
 
 EIGHTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 May 16. 
 
 Two of the Woodford Nationalists and the parish priest of Miltown-Malbay, 
 in county Clare, were examined. Preoccupied by the electioneering contests 
 at the end of 1885, the National League declined to give its active support to 
 the Woodford combination against the landlords, though it was ready to grant 
 relief in individual cases of hardship. So the Woodford men took the conduct 
 of the land war into their own hands, and in two or three weeks' time their 
 newly-formed association collected one thousand pounds. The Woodford asso- 
 ciation was, like the combination known as the " Plan," an extreme section of 
 the Nationalist party, and to both of them the central office of the National 
 League maintained a neutral attitude. It is the boast of the Woodford Union 
 men that their movement was the spontaneous work of the general body of the 
 tenants. However that may be, there can be no doubt about the energy and 
 determination of its leaders. Mr. John Roche, miller, of Woodford, and chair- 
 man of the Association, and Mr. Patrick Keary, merchant, of Woodford, and 
 secretary, who both appeared yesterday, are excellent specimens of the Wood- 
 ford type of Nationalist. 
 
 The object of the Attorney-General's cross-questioning of Mr. Roche was to 
 prove an artificial origin of the Woodford agitation. If the Government valua- 
 tion of the Woodford property of Lord Clanricarde (to select one landlord) was 
 so much higher than the rental ; if up to November, 1885 (when the Tenants' 
 Association was founded), the tenants paid their rents so regularly that there 
 were scarcely any arrears, how could it be said that the tenants were forced to 
 combine in self-defence against landlord oppression ? Mr. Roche promptly 
 replied that the Government valuation covered the landlord's own "demesne," 
 and that it was a mistake to suppose' that up to 1885 there were no serious 
 arrears of rent. At a later stage of his cross-examination he declared that some 
 of the rent deficits must have extended over periods varying from two to three 
 or four years. And when challenged to say whether a single tenant on Lord 
 Clanricarde' s Woodford estates signed the 1886 memorial in demand of a re- 
 duction of 25 per cent., Mr. Roche asserted that it was signed by every tenant 
 named in a list which the Attorney-General had a little while before read out. 
 
 Mr. Roche remembered the tenants' procession to landlord Lewis's house in 
 December, 1885, when Mr. Roche himself and Father Egan and other promi- 
 nent men accompanied it. And he frankly admitted that strong speeches were 
 made outside Mr. Lewis's gate. But that was quite natural, thought Mr. Roche, 
 considering that our offered compromise was received "in an insolent manner," 
 and that, in fact, Mr. Lewis's "door was slammed in our faces." Next the 
 Attorney-General asked him what he had to say in defence of the wild oratory 
 -of some of his associates — of " Doctor " Tully of the " pills," for example. Mr. 
 Roche declared that he had never heard that Tully had spoken of " leaden 
 pills ; " that " pills " did not mean leaden pills ; that the " Doctor's " " medi- 
 cine " was only another name for boycotting, or for the hot water which the 
 defenders of Irish "forts" squirted out upon their besiegers. In short, the 
 " Doctor's " rhetoric was, in Mr. Roche's estimation, as harmless as the boat- 
 builder Tully himself, whom he characterized the day before as the most in- 
 offensive person he had ever come across. 
 
 As for boycotting, Mr. Roche denied that in Woodford there was any boy- 
 cotting, save censure, or expulsion of members who broke the rules of the asso- 
 ciation. WTiy, Mr. Roche considered himself to be the best boycotted man in 
 Woodford, for the local landlords would " rather send to Timbuctoo than buy 
 a pennyworth of stuff from me." And he was positive that anyone of the 
 
240 Thursday] Diary of [May 16. 
 
 sixteen boycotted persons named by Sir Richard Webster would have found no 
 difficulty whatever in buying goods in Woodford. He knew as a fact that Pat 
 Conroy,one of the persons supposed to be boycotted, was all the while a regular 
 customer of Mr. Patrick Keary's. 
 
 In the next place the Attorney-General questioned Mr. Roche about his 
 share in the siege operations at Saunders's " fort " — the scene of the most exciting 
 contests in the Woodford eviction campaign. As Mr. Roche explained further 
 on, Saunders was a man who, after his first eviction, went to Australia, and 
 who, returning to Ireland in better circumstances than when he left it, built a 
 new house (the future "fort") at his own expense and with his own hands» 
 Did Mr. Roche cheer the defenders ? " It would not be me if I did not," 
 quickly replied Mr. Roche. And was that constitutional? "I will tell you 
 what it is," Mr. Roche exclaimed, turning alternately to the bench and the 
 prosecuting counsel, " When a man — as did his forefathers before him — has 
 spent a lifetime in building his house, without ever getting a penny from any- 
 one to help him, I believe that when a landlord comes and tries to deprive him 
 of that house, and to throw him out on the roadside without a shelter for him 
 and his family, and without the prospect of compensation, I consider a man is 
 justified in resisting him." " That is your idea of passive resistance?" " It 
 is what I call defending my home." 
 
 " Throwing out hot water appears to be funny to you, Mr. Roche ? " But 
 if it was, ]\Ir. Roche took his fun seriously. " No, sir," said he, striking the 
 ledge of the witness-box, " not to me ; nor to you, if you had seen those people 
 as i have. It may be to some of our English friends who have never seen them, 
 as I have seen them, in their misery and distress." Mr. Roche's stoiy con- 
 tained the inevitable tragedy. Among the twenty defenders of Saunders's 
 "fort " was young Tom Larkin, a mere boy, who for his share in the work was 
 sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment in Kilkenny gaol. There he died 
 of hardship. Mr. Roche could scarcely control his emotion as he described the 
 fate of young Larkin. " The unfortunate boy was lying dead when we went to 
 see him ; he was so disfigured that his own father failed to recognize him, and 
 the cell in which he lay was no larger than this box." 
 
 The cross-examination of ]Mr. Roche concluded with Mr. Reid's production 
 of the correspondence between Sir Michael Hicks-Beach and Lord Clanricarde. 
 Mr. Reid's object was to show that the Irish Secretary's warning to the land- 
 lord was in itself a justification of the tenants' discontent. But as soon as Mr. 
 Patrick Keary took Mr. Roche's place in the box, ]Mr. Atkinson tried to get 
 him to admit that "this business" — the Woodford agitation — was "got up" 
 by Father Egan, Mr. Roche, and one or two others. Mr. Atkinson always has 
 his eye upon Father Egan. The quietude of Woodford until his Reverence 
 came on the scene in August, 1885, has become a formula wdth Mr. Atkinson : 
 the reverend firebrand appeared, and then the conflagration began. Mr. 
 Keary, however, stoutly maintained that it was the tenants who of their own 
 accord started the demand for rent reductions. Mr. Keary endorsed Mr. 
 Roche's story about the mock funeral. Mr. Keary caused a laugh at Sir 
 Richard Webster's expense by telling him that the alleged mock funeral of the 
 process-server Finlay took place two months after the murder, instead of in two 
 days, as Sir Richard appeared to think. Nor was it true that the mock coffin 
 was laid beside Finlay's grave. The mock funeral, said Mr. Keary, was only 
 a procession of young men who went to gather the crops upon a farm about to 
 be " evicted." 
 
 Mr. Keary saw the procession pass up the street, and the inscription upon 
 the deal box or coffin, which the young men carried on their shoulders, was 
 " Down with landlordism." Was it true that Police-sergeant Coursey wanted 
 to buy wood from him for Finlay's coffin ? No. The sergeant asked for a 
 coffin, not for wood, and Mr. Keary did not sell coffins — they could be had 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [May 17. 241 
 
 " ready-made " in Portumna or Loughrea. Why did he not offer to sell the 
 wood ? Because it was not his habit to make offers to his customers. Did he 
 assist in boycotting the police ? Certainly ; and he did it because the police 
 behaved brutally at evictions. Would he have boycotted a certain Sergeant 
 Murphy, even to the extent of refusing to sell him and his child the necessaries 
 of life ? Yes, replied Mr. Keary, sharply ; and then he explained that in his 
 shop he did not sell necessaries of life. Replying to Mr. Lockwood, he de- 
 clared he had never even heard of such a thing as boycotting the food of 
 children. "I have an abhorrence of crime in every shape and form," Mr. 
 Keary said as he left the box ; adding that the Tenants' Association had been 
 successful in keeping Woodford parish free of outrage. 
 
 Father White, who next went into the box, entirely contradicted the most 
 important portions of the boycotting tale of Mrs. Connell, one of The Times 
 witnesses. But his evidence was suspended at four o'clock. 
 
 EIGHTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 May 17. 
 
 The cross-examination of Father ^^^lite having been concluded, the Rev. 
 Michael O 'Donovan, parish priest of Corrofin, in county Clare, gave evidence 
 about Tulla district, of a Land League branch of which he was president. 
 Speaking of the influence of Moonlighting societies in the days before the foun- 
 dation of the Land League, " I myself," said he, "have had threatening letters 
 from these moonlighters, and I have seen several other notices of the same 
 description." Father O'Donovan, not only as a priest, but also as a Land 
 Leaguer, denounced these secret outrages. Mr. Lockwood's questions to him 
 on this point were intended to demonstrate this hostility between the Land 
 League — the Open Association — and the secret body of which " Captain Moon- 
 light " was the head ; some of the most exciting evidence given before the 
 Commission having on the other hand affirmed collusion between moonlighters 
 and leaguers. 
 
 Taking Major Moloney's estates as an illustration, Father O'Donovan de- 
 scribed the state of the tenantry in the years before the foundation of the 
 League, and subsequently to it, as one of " miserable poverty." Of the hun- 
 dred or so tenants, said the witness, only six were able to pay their rents. 
 And, as a consequence, twenty-five of them were evicted in February, 18S2. 
 The tenants, according to Father O'Donovan's stor>', had for many years been 
 growing poorer and poorer — ever since 1870, when rents were raised on the 
 estate. Whatever improvements had been effected on the tenants' holdings 
 were the work of the tenants themselves. Yet in the years of distress the land- 
 lords, said Father O'Donovan, did "nothing whatsoever" to relieve the people. 
 In controdiction of the theory of the prosecution. Father O'Donovan declared 
 that landgrabbers were the objects of intimidation and outrage long before the 
 Land League existed. " A man who took an evicted farm would be regarded 
 as an enemy of the tenantry." But, Father O'Donovan added, " the League 
 always denounced crime." 
 
 If it did, how could he account for the fact that agrarian crime reached its 
 maximum during the existence of the Land League ? So it was put by Sir 
 Henry James, who, the instant he rose to cross-examine Father O'Donovan, 
 plunged into the statistics of outrage. Post hoc, certainly, according to Sir 
 Henry's figures, which showed that the number of outrages rose from five in 
 
 17 
 
242 Friday] Diary of [^-^ay 17. 
 
 1877 to two hundred and thirteen in i88i, and two hundred and seven in 1882. 
 But not, in the witness's view, /w//^r /loc. Father O'Donovan, who was a 
 somewhat slow witness, said something or other about the inclusion of such 
 minor offences as threatening letters in the criminal statistics. Sir Henry James 
 took the statistics for the whole of Clare, whereas Father O'Donovan was 
 speaking only of a single parish. 
 
 By the way, Sir Henr}' James's cross-examination of this witness was a good 
 specimen of his tact. In his most exacting moods, Sir Henry James is con- 
 siderate, forbearing, deferential, no matter who the " subject " 'may be upon 
 whom he is operating — rough, garrulous peasant from Kerr)^, or smooth, pre- 
 cise bishop from Dublin or Galway. In which respect, his style of cross- 
 examination is in not unwelcome contrast with the loud, bullying manner of 
 some who might be named. But to return to Father O'Donovan. In spite 
 of Sir Henry James's cross-questioning, he adhered to his statement that the 
 moonlighters were in existence before the Land League, and opposed to it. In 
 fact, the Reverend Father appeared to know so much about ' ' Captain Moon- 
 light " and his crew, that Sir Henry James expressed a polite surprise that 
 Father O'Donovan took no steps to put the rascals under lock and key. In 
 his slow, half-embarrassed, fatherly manner, Mr. O'Donovan assured Sir 
 Henry James that he had often expostulated with the young men whom he sus- 
 pected — and to such good effect that one of them at least fled the countr}'. 
 " Could you not stop it? " " No, I could not." The good priest did his best. 
 He told Mr. Lockwood that he denounced their misdeeds "forty Sundays 
 running." He had no definite proofs to bring against them. His explanation 
 of moonlighting coincided, in the main, with that of Mr. Parnell and others — 
 it was the work of sons of small farmers of the poorer class. 
 
 The next witness, Father John Hanneffy, of Riverside, county Galway, was 
 even more emphatic than Father O'Donovan in repudiating all connection 
 between the Land League and crime. Riverside was the residence of Peter 
 Dempsey, in celebration of whose murder bonfires blazed on the hill-tops. So 
 it was said in T/ie Times evidence, earlier in the trial. Father Hanneffy 
 contradicted the story. There were no bonfires, nor was Dempsey boycotted 
 for taking the farm from which (as a matter of fact) somebody had been evicted. 
 Nor was Mrs. Dempsey boycotted after her husband's murder. There was no 
 truth whatever in the suggestion that the local branch of the League had any- 
 thing to do with the crime. In fact, Dempsey's brother was a member of the 
 Land League at the time of the murder, and secretary of the local branch of 
 the National League now. 
 
 Witness number four, Patrick Keogh, of Kiltullagh — again county Galway — 
 also flatly contradicted T/ie Times evidence about another murdered man, 
 James Connor. The fifth witness was the parish priest of ]^Iullagh, near 
 Loughrea. President first of the Land League, and next of the National 
 League, he ought to know something about both. Father Bodkin has a temper 
 of his own, and there was a note of anger and disgust in his rejection of The 
 Times proposition, that the moonlighters were the "secret police" of the 
 League. Contemptuously, too, he denied the story that at a certain meeting of 
 the League a landgrabber named Kennedy had been warned that some day his 
 two dogs would eat him up. Father Bodkin, however, admitted that the 
 League had condemned Kennedy's conduct ; but "he was not interfered with," 
 said Father Bodkin. His conduct was condemned, said Father Bodkin, 
 early in 1881. " He took from a rack-renting landlord, who raised his rent 
 every time he got a new tenant, a farm that was occupied by a poor widow with 
 five children. The widow and her children are thrown on the world to this 
 day." Before he left the witness-box Father Bodkin spoke pretty strongly against 
 the grabbers, who used to get their neighbours evicted by paying higher rents. 
 Mr. John Nolan, from Ballynoonan, Galway, was the next witness. He was 
 
Tuesday] the Pavnell Coviinission. [May 21. 243 
 
 detained only a minute or two. The substance of his testimony was that the 
 Land League, instead of causing crime, prevented it. 
 
 The seventh and last witness of the day was Father Finneran, parish priest, 
 from near Ballinasloe, Galway. Examined by Mr. Lockwood, he described 
 the wretched condition in which he found the peasantry on the estates of Mrs. 
 Blake, of Connemara, in the year 1870. Speaking of another estate in the 
 same quarter of Ireland, at the same period, he told one of those mournful stories 
 with which the Court is already only too familiar — a story of a man named 
 Gannon, who with his sick wife and five children were turned out on the road- 
 side in December. After the eviction the priest was sent for, to administer the 
 last rites of her religion to the dying woman. He found the family outside their 
 old home, and the children, crying, trying to re-enter it. At this point the 
 President interfered. Why go back to the year 1870? After a pause Mr. 
 Lockwood, drawing himself up, replied that his object was to refute a supposi- 
 tion which pervaded TAe Times case since the trial began, the supposition that 
 up to the foundation of the Land League, landlords and tenants lived on the 
 friendliest terms ; to show that causes of agrarian war were at work before the 
 League ever appeared. Mr. Lockwood uttered every word of his appeal (of 
 which the foregoing is the substance) slowly and deliberately. Perhaps those 
 present in court might have felt somewhat expectant when Mr. Lockwood 
 quietly remarked that he hoped their lordships, before restricting the scope of 
 his inquiry, would "think what they were doing." A candid way of putting 
 it. The Times counsel, urged Mr. Lockwood, had reiterated their theory of 
 a peaceful Ireland in the pre-League days. Therefore he wished to be allowed 
 to enter into details which would prove its groundlessness. Sir James Hannen 
 remonstrated that evidence of such details, from a period so remote, might pro- 
 long the trial for ten years. But still Mr. Lockwood claimed his right to show 
 what the state of mind among the tenants was, when outrages began, and how 
 it was produced. Take your own course, replied Sir James Hannen, in 
 effect ; but he reiterated his opinion that Mr. Lockwood was going too far 
 afield. 
 
 EIGHTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 May 21. 
 
 Father Finneran, who concluded his evidence, corroborated the too fami- 
 liar story of landlord indifference to tenant hardship. Though there was 
 nothing new in what he said, he was about the best of the clerical witnesses. 
 Speaking of Mrs. Blake, of Connemara, he said that her estates, when she 
 assumed the management of them, were heavily mortgaged ; and this he 
 appeared to suggest, accounted, partly at least, for their rack-rents. 
 
 Mr. William O'Brien — his name called out by Mr. Reid — was the next witness 
 after Father Finneran. As he stood up in the witness-box he looked somewhat 
 less weak than he did when he arrived in court in charge of his warders 
 from an Irish gaol two or three weeks ago. But the President requested 
 him to be seated. And then he began the story of his life, with his tours 
 all over Ireland, as a newspaper correspondent. An admirable witness is Mr. 
 William O'Brien, the best and the most interesting — though of course not the 
 most " sensational," for there Le Caron and Pigott beat him hollow — who has 
 yet appeared before the Commission. His prompt, precise answers were the 
 graphic record of a keen observer of unique experience and untiring industry, 
 to whom even his enemies do not deny the virtues of sincerity, patriotism, and 
 
244 Tuesday] Diary of [Mciy 2i- 
 
 courageous self-sacrifice. "The intelligent foreigner," paying a visit to the 
 court might well feel puzzled at learning that the invalid-like witness seated 
 in the box was one of the two or three most loved leaders of the Irish 
 people, and a gaol-bird whose imprisonments had been so numerous that he 
 might be excused if he had lost count of them. 
 
 As regards the vexed question between accusers and accused — whether the 
 rise of the Land League was followed by outrages of a kind wholly new in the 
 history of Ireland, ]Mr. O'Brien's evidence was by far the most definite yet given 
 before the Commission. ]Murders ? Take the series of them which was perpe- 
 trated in Tipperary during the eight or nine years preceding the foundation of 
 the Land League. No one was ever brought to trial for the murder of the 
 landlord, Captain Baker, 187 1, whose inquest Mr. W. O'Brien described at 
 the time. In those days it was possible for a murderer to kill his victim in 
 broad daylight, coolly walk out unmeddled with into the street, and live among 
 his townsfolk for years unaccused. No one was ever punished for the terrible 
 murder of Tracey — 187 1 or 1S72 — w^hose offence was supposed to be land- 
 grabbing. Mr. O'Brien mentioned other cases of agrarian murder, the perpe- 
 trators of which were never brought to justice. 
 
 Is it true, asked Mr. Reid, that fourteen agrarian murders were committed 
 in Tipperary in the ten years before the foundation of the Land League ? Mr, 
 O'Brien would not undertake to say what the exact number was. He would 
 only speak ot instances which came under his personal observation ; and passing 
 to other forms of outrage, he mentioned instances in which land agents 
 escaped attempted assassination, and were put under police protection. Then 
 followed the argumentative comparison. Such was Tipperary de/ore the Land 
 League ; but in Tipperary q/lter the Land League, ' ' I have not been able to 
 find a single case of agrarian murder." And again, Tipperary is the county 
 where the League organization has been " strongest " ; but before the League^ 
 the Tipperary tenants had " no organization of any kind." 
 
 Was it true that fortified houses were unheard of before the League ? No ;. 
 and Mr. O'Brien mentioned an instance in which the defending tenants loop- 
 holed the walls of their house and shot a policeman dead. And there were 
 threatening notices then as now. The only difference, said Mr. O'Brien, was 
 that before the League the notices were signed by " Ror)^ o' the Hills," and by 
 "Captain Moonlight" after it. Leaving Tipperar}^, Mr. O'Brien gave some 
 vivid description of what he saw about Mitchelstown, county Cork. He 
 described how the peasants on the Galtee hills, by carrying soil and manure on 
 their backs from the valleys below, created the farms upon which they were 
 rack-rented. As a consequence, or alleged consequence, the landlord's agent 
 was shot at. That was on the Buckley estate, which formerly was included 
 in the Kingston estate. Since the rise of the League, said ]Mr. O'Brien, the 
 agrarian disputes on the Kingston estate have been unaccompanied by slaughter 
 — save the shooting of people by the constabular)' in Mitchelstown Square. 
 \Miat struck Mr. O'Brien most in his visit to the Galtees in the years before 
 the League, was the combined wretchedness and industry of the peasants. 
 
 He passed on to Donegal, and the murder of Lord Leitrim and his clerk in 
 1876. They were killed in broad daylight. And no one was " made amen- 
 able." Then Mayo and Galway during the distress of 1879. " Oh, it w^as 
 horrible." "It was appalling." " Tliere seemed to be no way out of it." 
 " And the landlords ridiculed the notion of distress, and did nothing." 
 "Absentee landlords, with an aggregate rent-roll of one hundred thousand a 
 year, would not reduce their rents one penny." And the general opinion among 
 the peasantry was that the famine of 1846 "would come back." As Mr. O'Brien 
 described all this, his face flushed ; and there was in his voice just a note of the 
 fierce wrath which often blazes forth when he is "on the stump." Once or twice 
 only, in the course of his evidence, did his indignation get the better of him. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [May 22. 245 
 
 Seated in the box, with his legs crossed, and his papers about him, he talked 
 exactly as he does with some solitary visitor in his sky-high garret, Imperial 
 Hotel, Sackville Street (we beg pardon. Upper O'Connell Street), Dublin. He 
 answered Mr. Reid in a conversational, reflective way, as if he were unconscious 
 of the presence of anybody except Mr. Reid, speaking all the while with the 
 graphic force of one before whose eyes were passing the scenes he was describ- 
 ing. The sudden impulsive "Oh, it was horrible," was a good example of 
 this manner. 
 
 Mr. O'Brien came to the time of the Land League. What would have 
 happened had there been no League? Mr. Reid asked. "There is nothing 
 more certain in history," replied ]\Ir. O'Brien, " than that there would have been 
 wholesale famine and a civil war." " It was the universal impression " among 
 the tenants, he continued, that the landlords were trying " to break up the 
 land legislation of 1870." But for the Land League the million of money 
 w^hich saved the Western Irish from death w^ould never have been raised. And, 
 said Mr. O'Brien, the police were actually evicting in Clare Island at the very 
 time when the coast population was " literally and absolutely starving " on shell- 
 fish and sea- weed (as in the island of Innishark). 
 
 iSIr. O'Brien stated, emphatically, that to his knowledge the young men about 
 Lough Mask were at that time contemplating an attack on the troops. Mr. 
 O'Brien is nothing if not outspoken. x\nd he declared, with all the earnestness 
 at his command, that in a country like Ireland there was nothing like boycott- 
 ing for keeping down outrage. By boycotting he meant an expression of 
 organized public sentiment and opinion, without admixture of intimidation. 
 The boycott, by preventing grabbing, prevented eviction — which he considered 
 to be the source of outrage. In the most matter-of-fact manner he quoted the 
 criminal history of ]Mayo, Kilkenny, West Meath, Wexford, as " arithmetical " 
 proof of his position, that " the boycott is the peacemaker of Ireland." 
 
 Lastly, Mr. Reid came to the history of The Irishman and United Ireland. 
 Mr. O'Brien's audience laughed loudly as he declared that at the time of its 
 death, in 1885, The Irishman had a circulation of only some twelve hundred 
 copies per week, and that about half of them were sold by ^Messrs. W. H. 
 Smith and Sons. As we knew The Irishman was doomed, said Mr. O'Brien, 
 and as we did not like to displease the section of extreme Nationalists, we pre- 
 ferred to let the paper die its natural death. Speaking of that section, our 
 object, said i^Ir. O'Brien, was to conciliate all parties; and he regarded _ Mr. 
 Parnell's conciliation — his attempt to bring over the extremists to constitutional 
 agitation — as the strongest point in his policy. As to the organ of the League, 
 United Ireland, one interesting fact in its history was that sixteen members of its 
 staff (including the editor, two acting editors, the sub-editor, and others) had 
 been under lock and key in Kilmainham. The afternoon sitting was chiefly occu- 
 pied in reading extracts from The Irishman and United Ireland, for the purpose 
 of showing that certain incriminatory passages quoted by the accusers were only 
 extracts from other papers, and also of showing how United Ireland was for 
 years protesting against the assumption, common in the English press, that the 
 policy of the League w^as identical with the policy of the party of violence. 
 
 EIGHTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 ]\Iay 22. 
 
 ^'It is absolutely untrue," said ^Nlr. O'Brien, "that the National League has 
 encouraged outrage ; its secretary, Mr. Harrington, has suppressed local 
 
246 Wednesday] Diary of [May 22. 
 
 branches because they were guilty of strong language ; and for the last four or 
 five years the central office of the League in Dublin has promptly called public 
 meetings in any locality from which news has been received of danger of out- 
 rage." In order to show how entirely the mass of the American-Irish sup- 
 porters of the National League were in favour of constitutionalism, Mr. 
 O'Brien gave a brief and telling description of the great meeting which he 
 attended at Chicago in 18S6, at which fifteen thousand people were present, 
 and at which a unanimously "loyal and hearty support of Mr. Gladstone's 
 policy " was voted. This was the meeting at which both Mr. Davitt and Mr, 
 O'Brien repudiated the physical force policy of the well-known Irish-American, 
 Mr. Finerty, who made a speech on the same occasion, and who found him- 
 self in a minority of one. Before he went to America Mr. O'Brien knew 
 nothing of Finerty, beyond what he had read in the London papers. "And 
 I should be sorry," said he, " to believe anything the London newspapers said 
 in their estimate of the character of Irishmen." Mr. O'Brien is nothing if not 
 straightforward. To sum up his evidence about his American tour — all over 
 America he was welcomed by men of the highest position ; an ex-Speaker of the 
 United States Senate presided at one of his meetings ; he received the freedom 
 of the City of Boston ; and he refused a public reception in New York, when 
 he discovered that physical force men were engaged in organizing it. 
 
 At two or three minutes to eleven o'clock, the Attorney-General rose_ to 
 cross-examine. His first few questions referred to United Ireland. During 
 his imprisonment in Kilmainham, 1881-2, ]\Ir. O'Brien knew little of the 
 paper. In fact, United Ireland h&mg "suppressed," led a sort of nomadic life, 
 printed in some English town " to-day, and hundreds of miles off next week." 
 
 And so, continued the Attorney-General, your position is that from 1879 
 till now your policy has been constitutional. Neither in writing, nor in 
 speech, nor in action, nor in thought, had he, replied Mr. O'Brien, been 
 anything but constitutional. Later, however, he made one exception. At 
 Mitchelstown, in 1887, just on the eve of the passing of an Act which 
 would relieve the tenants, but which for that very reason the landlord 
 was doing his utmost to discount, Mr. O'Brien did advise the tenants to 
 stick to their holdings. So there were no evictions, said ~Slx. O'Brien, and 
 "nobody was a penny the worse." Half the day was spent in a dialectical 
 battle between the Attorney-General and Mr. O'Brien, over the latter" s asser- 
 tion of his constitutionalism. The Attorney-General, by trying to show up 
 Mr. O'Brien as a supporter of boycotting and other forms of illegality, was 
 doing his best to destroy his claim. But Mr. O'Brien was as ready with his 
 "destinctions," as any ecclesiastic — say like Dr. Walsh — trained in the logic 
 of the schools. \\Tiat kind of boycotting do you mean, ^Nlr. Attorney? What 
 we in Ireland call boycotting is what you in the West End call "black- 
 balling." Moreover, Mr. Attorney, we in Ireland distinguish between 
 "criminality" and "illegality." The people in Ireland have no love for 
 criminality, but as for illegality, meaning an attitude towards law as law — the 
 letter of the law — why, exclaimed Mr. O'Brien, " illegality is bred in us." 
 This downright frank declaration elicited some not unsympathetic laughter, 
 which was renewed on Mr. O'Brien's remarking that for years the very exis- 
 tence of the Irish people was "illegal." 
 
 The Woodford people were given to illegalities ; and, as ]Mr. O'Brien said 
 later, it was "the Woodford spirit that made England what it is." That was 
 one for England, and neatly put. And if boycotting destroyed a man's busi- 
 ness, well, what of that? Supposing the person boycotted was a man whc^ 
 had earned his money by usury, and who made use of the profits he got 
 out of his neighbours to overbid some one or other of them for his poor 
 holding on the very first opportunity? The boycott, which meant social 
 avoidance, and excluded intimidation, was, in ]Mr. O'Brien's opinion, the only 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission, [May 22. 247 
 
 weapon left to the Irish peasantry. Mr. O'Brien was dead against intimida- 
 tion, against violence, in whatever form, "against brutality of all sorts." The 
 boycott, as thus restricted and defined was, Mr. O'Brien repeated, the only 
 weapon which the peasants could turn against grabbers and landlords. It was 
 their only plan of retaliation. " A la guerre, comme a la guerre ! " exclaimed 
 Mr. O'Brien. The Attorney-General instantly seized upon the expression. 
 Ah ! and that is your idea of constitutional action, Mr. O'Brien? Mr. O'Brien 
 warmly protested. " I am sure," said he, turning to the Bench, " that no one 
 listening to me could say that, using the words in a figurative sense, I should 
 be regarded as applying them to actual warfare." "No, certainly not," re- 
 marked the President, " I did not take it as meaning that." 
 
 jNIr. O'Brien's demeanour at this time must have struck most of his audience. 
 It was one of weariness and hopelessness. "All Greek," said he, "to you 
 English people; we understand in Ireland what boycotting is, you don't." 
 And when the Attorney-General quoted police statistics to show how crime 
 and the League were like substance and shadow, Mr. O'Brien, with an expres- 
 sion of contemptuous impatience, remarked that he did not ' ^ care a rush for 
 police statistics." The only police statistics which were trustworthy were those 
 of murder ; because murder could not be hidden; but as for other outrages, " they 
 were made to increase or decrease according to the requirements of the Govern- 
 ment." And as for cattle maiming and firing into houses, Mr. O'Brien believed 
 that landgrabbers often "got up" these outrages in order to get police protec- 
 tion and money compensation. 
 
 Said the Attorney-General, crime was, in 1880, more frequent in Munster 
 than in Ulster— though in that year the League was supposed to be strongest in 
 the former and weakest in the latter province. 
 
 *'^At such a crisis," replied Mr. O'Brien, "no human power could prevent 
 crime. But I do say the League prevented crime which might have occurred. 
 I, however, attach no importance to police returns." " ^Yhat the police call 
 crime, we look upon as the very best thing a citizen can do. For instance, the 
 police included in their crime returns such charges as those of speech-making 
 against the Messrs. Harrington, for which they were sent to jail." 
 
 These speeches were delivered in Kerry, the county to which Sir Redvers 
 Buller was sent in order to put down moonhghting. The General, said Mr. 
 O'Brien, " was sent to curse, and remained to pray." And then came one of 
 those half-soliloquies to which Mr. O'Brien often gives expression. One of 
 these was the " all Greek " expression named above. And now came another : 
 if the members of that Court knew Ireland as he knew it, the inquiry before 
 their Lordships would be " materially curtailed." In a moment of seriousness 
 and sudden inspiration, even Mr. Coffey, the trifler and the prevaricator, said 
 the same thing. 
 
 At the Attorney-General's next criticism Mr. O'Brien's patience gave way. 
 What of the "armed resistance" offered by the Woodford tenants during the 
 eviction campaign? "Armed resistance," exclaimed Mr. O'Brien, angrily; 
 "the description is perfectly monstrous." The resistance of "hot water" — 
 against the arms of constabulary and police. It was resistance of the most 
 "trumpery character." Did you in any of your speeches, Mr. O'Brien, call 
 upon the people to assist the Government in detecting crime? "No, I did 
 not," was Mr. O'Brien's reply, with the same expression of impatience and annoy- 
 ance. "To do that would be to acknowledge a state of things which they 
 absolutely denied existed. It would be interpreted as an admission that the 
 country was steeped in blood, whereas, with regard to the vast area of the 
 country that was absolutely and totally a falsehood._ Besides, no means existed 
 by which the people could co-operate with the police." 
 
 The rest of the cross-examination for the day was chiefly occupied withques- 
 tions about T/ie Iris// man and United Ireland. A column headed " Incidents 
 
248 Thursday] Diary of [^^ciy 23. 
 
 of the Campaign " appeared to the Attorney-General to imply that the acts of 
 violence recorded in it were part of the Plan, had the approval of the leaders 
 of the Plan. ]\ir. O'Brien explained that they were simply news paragraphs. 
 But, said he, some of them are very objectionable — the paragraph, for instance, 
 which said that perhaps the threatened blowing up of a certain police-barracks 
 "had been postponed." Mr. O'Brien suggested that the paragraph might 
 have been a " comment on a canard.'''' Of these paragraphs Mr. U"Brien him- 
 self knew nothing at the time, for he was in prison when they were published. 
 Notwithstanding the publication of these "incidents," Mr. O'Brien strenuously 
 maintained that neither in speech nor in writing had he advocated unconstitu- 
 tional methods of agitation. But with his usual perfect candour he objected to 
 the ordinary use of such words as loyal, and constitutional : loyalty, said he, 
 " has two meanings, force and affection. Force I bowed to, both in my paper 
 and elsewhere ; of affection I had none, and never pretended I had until 1885." 
 Only two more questions need particular notice. ^Vhy did Mr. Egan escape 
 from Ireland ? Because he knew that if the smallest particle of evidence could 
 be got up against him [in connection with the Phoenix Park murders] his life 
 would not be worth twenty-four hours' purchase. Mr. O'Brien believed there 
 was a "desperate anxiety" on the part of certain police officers in Ireland to 
 connect Mr. Egan with the murders. The second question was about Dan 
 Curley, one of those sentenced to death for the Park crimes. In United 
 Ireland appeared this letter : — 
 
 "Dear Sir, — Now the strangling commission is over, and honest Dan Curley is killed off, 
 I enclose los. for his widow." 
 
 "Very reprehensible," said Mr. O'Brien ; but the letter was inserted when 
 Mr. O'Brien was in Kilmainham — when, consequently, he had no control over 
 the paper. 
 
 EIGHTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 May 23. 
 
 Not a smgle Ime of argument was overlooked by which ]\Ir. O'Brien's claim 
 of constitutionalism for his policy might be overthrown. On resuming his 
 cross-examination, the Attorney-General sought to find in Mr. O'Brien's 
 " exchanges " a proof of Mr. O'Brien's sympathy — if not worse — with policies 
 of outrage. Among the papers which were received at ]\Ir. O'Brien's office 
 in exchange for United Ireland were The Boston Pilot, The Chicago Citizen, 
 77ie New York World. The Chicago Citizen was the organ of Mr. Finerty, 
 whom the prosecution have alleged to be a dynamiter, but whom ~Slx. O'Brien 
 most strenuously affirms to be a respected, honourable American-Irishman, who 
 used to believe (if he does not believe it still) that it was useless for Ireland to 
 hope for redress from England save through insurrection. As for Mr. Patrick 
 Ford's Irish World, it ceased to be sent to the office of United Ireland some 
 time in 1882, and as for the "strong" paragraphs which were printed in 
 United Ireland, and to which the Attorney-General had taken such strong objec- 
 tion, why, said Mr. O'Brien, they were merely " re-hashes "' from other news- 
 papers, put in as news in the ordinar)- journalistic way. In these news para- 
 graphs, said Mr. O'Brien, I myself "did not take any interest." He had 
 quite enough to do in writing the leading articles for his paper and in attend- 
 ing to his Parliamentary business, and his political journeys over Ireland. In 
 reference to this matter of extracts from the American papers, Mr. O'Brien 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [May 23. 249 
 
 ■declared over and over again that quantities of them were reproductions, " re- 
 hashes " from the London newspapers. On this point Mr. O'Brien made 
 some very emphatic and indignant criticisms. It was the prominence given by 
 the London newspapers to sensational stories about American-Irish dyna- 
 mitards that did more than anything else to advertise them and encourage 
 them. In Mr. O'Brien's candid estimation, his brother journalists of London 
 were doing more mischief than a host of O'Donovan Rossas. 
 
 "Yes, I wrote that," Tvlr. O'Brien replied, in his prompt, downright way, 
 when the Attorney-General quoted a passage from an old article referring to 
 the toast of the Queen at a banquet to Mr. Parnell, — "An old lady who N\as 
 only known in Ireland by her scarcely decently disguised hatred of the Irish 
 people, and the inordinate amoutit of her salary." Was that constitutional ? 
 Sir Richard Webster asked, in his most solemn manner. '' I think," replied 
 jNIr. O'Brien, " that it was perfectly constitutional to criticize the conduct of 
 the sovereign ; I think that in the condition in which Ireland then was I was 
 perfectly justified in writing in these terms." The calm air of sincere convic- 
 tion in which Mr. O'Brien uttered these words was perhaps more impressive 
 than the Attorney-General's solemnity. Sir Richard drew himself up. He 
 repeated the words, " Scarcely — veiled — hatred," pausing at each, and then 
 pausing for a reply. " It is strong language," Mr. O'Brien replied, " but my 
 words expressed the universal behef in Ireland." With the utmost composure 
 Mr. O'Brien said he would write the same words again under the same circum- 
 stances ; but, said he, the circumstances have changed. 
 
 Here, in fact, ^Ir. O'Brien touched upon the argument that has run through 
 his evidence from first to last. In the earlier part of his evidence he put his 
 whole argument in a nutshell when he said " the Woodford spirit made 
 England what it is." He expressed the same idea to-day when he 
 said that agitations which would be "legally criminal" in England were 
 morally justifiable in Ireland — anything but " morally disgraceful " — provided 
 that they were kept free from intimidation. ]Mr. O'Brien's meaning was 
 fully illustrated and made perfectly clear when the Attorney-General came 
 to Mr. O'Brien's articles on the Prince of Wales's visit to Ireland. Could 
 Mr. O'Brien reconcile these articles with his claim to constitutional character 
 as a politician ? Yes, Mr. O'Brien could. And he proceeded to draw a dis- 
 tinction between constitutional, "in a certain narrow view of it," and consti- 
 tutional in the broad English sense. Mr. O'Brien justified his opposition to 
 the ceremonial of the Prince's reception, because the Prince of Wales's visit 
 was regarded in Ireland as " a party move." The Prince's visit was used 
 (not by the Prince personally) as a sort of counter-demonstration to the 
 national movement. "When," continued Mr. O'Brien, '' 77ie Times made 
 use of the Prince's visit to declare that Parnellism was upset by it, we felt 
 bound, we thought it was a matter of desperate necessity, to protest ; and in 
 the broad spirit of English freedom we were right." " I would not write these 
 articles iiozu,^'' repeated Mr. O'Brien ; for, as he had already said, the relations 
 between England and Ireland had been changed in the interval. 
 
 In one of the articles under discussion, and quoted by the Attorney-General, 
 Mr. O'Brien had said that the chairman of the Kingstown Commissioners, the 
 gentleman by w^hose casting vote the public reception was accorded to the 
 Prince of Wales, would, when he came to seek re-election, be hunted by his 
 constituents from public life. "And he has been," said i^Ir. O'Brien, when 
 Sir Richard read the passage. "You mean that as a joke ? " remarked the 
 Attorney-General. "No, sir," rephed Mr. O'Brien, sharply, and with a ring 
 of indignation in his voice ; " I only state it as a fact. Everybody in Ireland 
 knew what would happen at the next election of the Kingstown Commissioners. 
 These demonstrations of ' sham loyalty ' were only deluding the English 
 people." They "misrepresented the true positipn of Ireland." It was there- 
 
250 Thursday] Diary of [May 23. 
 
 fore "terribly necessary that we should expose them. As for the Prince of 
 Wales personally, I never said a word against his character." Mr. O'Brien 
 declared that if his Royal Highness had only " passed through Ireland " in his 
 private character, he would not have written as he did ; but that he considered 
 the visit as " a counter-force " to the Nationalist movement, and its purpose to 
 persuade the English people that the Nationalist feeling was " a bogus feeling." 
 " Yes," exclaimed Mr. O'Brien again, " I say that in the large sense of con- 
 stitutionalism our action was constitutional, and that we followed English 
 example." 
 
 Mr. O'Brien adopted the same line of argument when the Attorney-General 
 cross-examined him on his journalistic opposition to the display of English 
 flags, and to the "hated notes" of the National Anthem. As for the flags, 
 they were, in Ireland, said Mr. O'Brien, emblems of party factions; there was 
 not a "shred of honest loyalty " in the exhibition of them. And then as for 
 the " National Anthem," it used to be in Ireland, a party tune, like "The 
 Boyne Water." But that was in the past; since the "revolution" in Irish 
 feeling which the last two or three years had witnessed, the "National 
 Anthem" was regarded diff"erently. " Ah," said Mr. O'Brien, slowly shaking 
 his head, and putting on, for once, an expression of ironical humour, "since 
 1885, 'God save the Queen' has lost its charms for our opponents." This 
 satirical stroke was quite appreciated by ]Mr. O'Brien's densely packed and 
 attentive audience. 
 
 Just at the moment when Mr. O'Brien was explaining the political aspect 
 from which the Nationalists regarded the Prince's visit, Mr. Gladstone made 
 his appearance, for the first time since the beginning of the trial. Conducted 
 by Sir Charles Russell, he entered the court through the doorway in the screen 
 below the judicial bench. He sat down among the la\\7ers, beside ^Ir. Lock- 
 wood, and in a moment, with his hand at his ear, and his elbow on the bench, 
 he was absorbed in the cross-examination. On the opposite side of the court, 
 to the Judges' left, sat, among a crowd of visitors, Mrs. Gladstone, busily 
 taking notes. A few minutes before somebody in court had passed up to her a 
 little bouquet of flowers. Mr. Gladstone's arrival was luckily timed. For in 
 this cross-examination there was, unavoidably, a good deal of political, as dis- 
 tinguished from legal, reference ; and he heard passages which must naturally 
 have interested him. 
 
 For throughout the whole course of Mr. O'Brien's evidence — evidence 
 most profoundly impressive, whatever "side" one may choose to take in 
 regard to it — runs the distinction between English Governments and the 
 English people. For example, when the Attorney-General, quoting an article 
 of Mr. O'Brien's on the destruction of the EngHsh power, was leading up to 
 the Prince's visit, Mr. O'Brien frankly declared, "No; I don't approve of 
 that article now." He considered himself justified in writing it in November, 
 1884, before the year of the "revolution " in Irish feeling; but he would not 
 write it now. _ " I tell you," said Mr. O'Brien, " that we always distinguished 
 between English Governments and the English democracy." "'England' 
 meant for us, in those times, one class of people." Then the Attorney- 
 General questioned him about a speech delivered some months later in Phcenix 
 Park. Yes, Mr. O'Brien had used strong expressions. But he was smarting 
 under a sense of indignation at his expulsion from the House of Comm.ons. 
 And if Ireland had been strong enough to rebel then against her misrule, he 
 would have been the first to risk his life for her. " If ever there was a right of 
 rebellion that right was with our people then, but as there was not the remotest 
 chance of success, the attempt would have been insanity and criminality." 
 " Did not such language tend to inflame the people?" asked the Attorney- 
 General. ' ' The stronger the language I used the greater was the relief to the 
 people," replied Mr. O'Brien ; "just as I believe the stronger the language we 
 
Thursday'] the Parnell Commission. [May 23. 251 
 
 used against the landlords the less the risk of outrage against them. The 
 denunciation of them served as a lightning conductor — taking off the 
 excessive feeling against the landlords, just as the conductor acted on the 
 electricity in the air." And then, in his most earnest manner, Mr. O'Brien, 
 clenching his hand and striking the desk with it, reminded the Attorney- 
 General that in the same speech he had declared that there were even in the 
 House from which he had been expelled men for whom the Irish people 
 felt a deep regard, most of all "for Mr. Gladstone, whose kindliness and 
 tenderness for Ireland were like drops in an ocean of prejudice." 
 
 Once more, Sir Richard Webster turned to the question of Irish hostility to 
 " England," by quoting United Treland ?ixX.\c\e?, about the Afghans, the Boers, 
 and the Soudanese. " We sympathized with these peoples," said Mr. O'Brien, 
 " because they were fighting against odds for what they considered to be jus- 
 tice." And then Mr. O'Brien repeated what he had often said before about 
 the revolution in Irish feeling, and the "hope" of Ireland in the "English 
 people." 
 
 At this stage again, Mr. O'Brien made one of those many professions of his, 
 which strike even his opponents by their magnificent frankness and intense 
 sincerity. " If," said he — " if by any misfortune — which God forbid — it 
 became perfectly clear that the English people would give no satisfaction to the 
 national aspirations of Ireland, then, beyond all manner of doubt, I think still, 
 if a rational chance offered, it would be justifiable to take it." 
 
 But, as he repeatedly said, in effect, in the course of his evidence, for English 
 Cabinets there had been substituted the English people ; and the consequence 
 was, a revolution in Irish feeling. He gave an illustration of this revolution, 
 from the Irish-American meeting at Chicago in 1886, which Mr. O'Brien 
 himself attended. In that American journey INIr. O'Brien appealed, as he 
 expressed it, to the whole Irish race. And the Chicago demonstration was 
 an endorsement of the new Anglo-Irish policy, as " a triumph of Mr. Glad- 
 stone's policy." ISIr. O'Brien's speech at Chicago was made before fifteen 
 thousand men, who received Mr. Gladstone's name with as much enthusiasm 
 as if the demonstration were taking place in England. 
 
 The other points in Mr. O'Brien's evidence may be rapidly passed over. 
 Had he advised tenants to barricade their houses ? Certainly. He had 
 advised them to offer the utmost amount of passive resistance. " But," said 
 Mr. O'Brien, "in that very speech which you are quoting I advised the tenants 
 to shun crime as they would poison." In those barricadings, said Mr. O'Brien, 
 "the suffering has been all on one side, I am sorr}' to say." But if Mr. 
 O'Brien had advised the people to shun crime, had he not also, in the Saunders 
 barricading case, advised the jury to acquit the accused, even before the trial 
 began? Was not that doing the very thing of which Mr. O'Brien himself 
 accused the Castle — bringing undue influence to bear upon jurors ? Mr. 
 O'Brien at once explained how in trials of that description juries are packed. 
 " I said," he continued, " that the defenders were not guilty of crime.'''' " My 
 advice was moral advice, not legal advice." " I hold conscience to be higher 
 than legality." "Law has not the same meaning in Ireland that it has in a 
 freely governed country like England." 
 
 The same idea pervaded "Six. O'Brien's remarks on another topic, which 
 suddenly sprang up, on an incidental allusion of the Attorney-General's, and 
 which created considerable excitement in court. Sir Richard Webster made a 
 passing reference to the " three murderers, Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien," Quick 
 as lightning, Mr. O'Brien repudiated the word murderers. The three " ^lan- 
 chester Martyrs" were not murderers. They were only trying to rescue their 
 fellow-countrymen from the prison-van ; they fired into the lock, for the 
 purpose of breaking open the van-door, and Sergeant Brett was accidentally 
 shot. 
 
252 Thursday] Diary of [May 23. 
 
 " Hear, hear !"' exclaimed some one, in a low voice, from the well of the 
 court. The Attorney-General protested. "A most unbecoming expression," 
 said the President, " and if I knew who used it, I should order him to leave the 
 court, whoever he might be ; and let me observe with regard to this that I 
 fully understand Mr. O'Brien's statement in the matter. He says that what 
 these men did under the circumstances doesn't warrant the ordinary appella- 
 tion of murder. Well, I am not going to discuss that with him now. I need 
 only remind him, and every one else, that in this court at least it must be 
 regarded as murder. The prisoners were tried and found guilty of murder." 
 
 The person who "used it" was Mr. iSIichael Davitt. And the person who 
 on behalf of the Treasury prosecuted the three men to their death, was the 
 Mr. James Hannen, who in the course of years was destined to sit in judgment 
 on the Irish Nationalists. 
 
 A striking contrast between the man who had just walked out of the box and 
 the man who now entered it. Mr. O'Brien, with only thirty-seven years of 
 life ; haggard, bent, careworn, fragile, with his expression of intense 
 earnestness ; " Murty Hynes," white-haired, white-bearded, and sixty-two or 
 three, straight as a ramrod, hearty in manner, and brimful of happy humour 
 and animal spirits. As regards temperament, two different types of Irishmen. 
 But both exactly alike in conviction, and in their totally unembarrassed, frank, 
 downright, fearless style of saying their say. 
 
 Mr. T. D. Sullivan, M.P., ex-Lord INIayor of Dublin, is often called 
 "Murty Hynes," after his famous ballad. " T. D." is the bard of the 
 Nationalists. Mr. Sullivan was examined by Mr. Reid. He described him- 
 self as member of Parliament for the "College-green" division of Dublin, and 
 as editor and proprietor of TAe Naiioii, and as an opponent from the begin- 
 ning of his career of all " impracticable " schemes, such as Fenianism, for the 
 regeneration of Ireland. He showed how he had all along supported the 
 constitutional movements in Ireland, as against physical force projects. Of 
 j\Ir. ^lartin's Home Rule party, then of Mr. Butt's, lastly of Mr. Parnell's, 
 !Mr. Sullivan had been an adherent. He had never even heard that the Land 
 and National Leagues, of which he was a member, had encouraged outrage. 
 His paper, The Nation, had denounced outrage in every shape and form. 
 IMore than an hour was occupied by Mr. Reid in quoting, from The Nation, 
 extracts in which mutilation was unsparingly denounced, and dynamite notions 
 ridiculed. 
 
 ]Mr. Murphy now rose to cross-examine. If INIr. Sullivan was opposed to 
 deeds of violence, why had he celebrated, in verse, the shooting of a police- 
 man by Captain Mackay? Had he celebrated it? Mr. Sullivan shook his 
 head. He smiled benignly upon ]Mr. Murphy. Knew nothing about any such 
 " song." Mr. ^lurphy tried again. Well, %\x. Sullivan, did you write any- 
 thing? ]Mr. Sullivan again shook his head. He could not recollect. Then 
 ]\Ir. Murphy looked puzzled. He had made some mistake. " Well, let us try 
 something else," quoth Mr. INIurphy. "No, no," said "T. D. S.," in his 
 bright, hearty way, "let us dispose of this first." An outburst of laughter, 
 wherein ]Mr. Murphy did not join. 
 
 " But you did write a song, Mr. Sullivan, in praise of a man who gave up an 
 evicted farm ? " This was the famous ballad of " Murty H}Ties." !Mr. Sullivan 
 bowed. " I have not seen it," said the President, with a kindly smile. Well, 
 ISIr. Sullivan had a copy of his poems (bound in the national colour, green), 
 which was at Sir James's disposal. It would have been interesting to hear Mr. 
 Murphy read out that popular ballad in court. At his pleasant " At Homes " 
 in the Dublin oNIansion House, my lord the Mayor often sang "Murty Hynes," 
 for the delectation of his guests. Mr. Sullivan has a splendid voice, and his 
 rendering of the Irish brogue is inimitably humorous. Mr. Murphy next 
 mentioned ^^Ir. Sullivan's " God Save Ireland," a song founded on the story of 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [^lay 24. 253 
 
 the Manchester trials, and since become the anthem of the Irish race all over 
 the world. What of that song, Mr. Sullivan ? "I shall say nothing to throw 
 dishonour on the memory of those men," was the answer. " They acted a 
 foolish but a brave part." Forgetful of the President's warning, given when 
 Mr. O'Brien was under cross-examination, some one called out, Hear, hear ! 
 " There are," said Mr. Sullivan, " legal crimes which in Ireland, under the 
 circumstances of the times, could not be called moral crimes." Of course he 
 was questioned about boycotting and intimidation. Upon which he generally 
 replied that he had over and over again said he would not hurt a hair of the 
 grabber's head. " I would give him bread if he w^anted it." But for all that 
 " I consider the grabber a moral leper ; it is he who has created rack rent ? " 
 For a long time Mr. jNIurphy pounded away, heavily, perseveringly, with 
 questions about the Land League books. " Why did you not ask about them, 
 Mr. Sullivan?" "Oh, w^hy did I not ask about a thousand other things?" 
 replied Mr. Sullivan. " Did you ever help the authorities to detect crime, Mr. 
 Sullivan ? " " Help ? How ? What do you mean ? Give the police informa- 
 tion? Why, I had none to give." 
 
 EIGHTY^SIXTH DAY. 
 
 May 24. 
 
 Mr. Murphy renewed his bombardment of Mr. T. D. Sulhvan. Mr. jMurphy, 
 Q.C., had in the interval been studying "Green Leaves," and Mr. Murphy 
 thought he had caught the poet. Listen to this, Mr. Sacer Vates of National- 
 ism — 
 
 Here's to West Meath, 
 
 Where a tj-rant cannot breathe. 
 
 What of that melodious couplet ? " Nonsense, man " (Mr. Sulhvan waving his 
 hand), " ^^^ly, that's poetry." And Mr. Sullivan raised his brows, and 
 shrugged his shoulders, as if he thought (but didn't like to say) that it was no 
 use arguing wdth the literal-minded Murphy. But it must mean something, 
 quoth Murphy, looking a little troubled. Well, yes; and the verses were only 
 the bardic way of saying that the "grabber " (the Ishmael of Ireland) had no 
 footing in West Meath. The bard and the lawyer gazed at each other — 
 Apollo and Rhadamanthus seeing each his side of the shield. The poet 
 regarded the lawyer in amused pity. Then it turned out that Mr. Murphy 
 made a mistake in his quotation. What he should have said was — 
 
 Where a tjTant scarce can breathe. 
 
 But as the lawyer's is the most unpoetic of callings, Mr. Murphy still failed to 
 see it, and remained unconvinced whenj Mr. Sullivan informed him that he 
 had toasted (in tuneful numbers) all the counties of Ireland, and found in 
 " breathe " a handy rhyme for Meath. 
 
 Then Mr. Murphy tried the Catechism, the Land League Catechism only — 
 though, as the reading proceeded, it aroused some dismal reminiscences of 
 another catechism. Mr. Murphy reeled off his catechism at irreverent speed, 
 showing what was the chief end of (NationaHst) man, what the deserts, both 
 now and in the future, of the grabbing sinner. INIr. Murphy droned away like 
 a curate in a hurry. And the congregation yawned. 
 
 Having done with verse and the Catechism, Mr. Murphy tried journalism. 
 As editor and proprietor of The Nation, Mr. Sullivan had been accustomed to 
 
254 Friday] Diary of 'M^iy 24. 
 
 print a weekly column under the title " Incidents of the Campaign." The 
 incidents included cases of boycotting and of other forms of intimidation. Did 
 jNlr. Sullivan approve of such incidents ? Mr, Sullivan stared at Murphy in 
 astonishment. These "incidents" were cuttings from other new.spapers. 
 And they were inserted simply as news. "We are bound to publish news," 
 said Mr. Sullivan, thumping the desk. But that would not satisfy Mr. Murphy, 
 who again asked, " Did you mean to glorify evil news?" " Glorification had 
 nothing to do with it," was the answer ; the incidents were inserted as news. 
 But there was a leading article which Mr. Murphy fixed upon. In that leader, 
 an article of The Times, denouncing dynamitards as fiends was treated in a 
 scoffing spirit. But Mr. Sullivan explained that The Nation writer was not 
 scoffing at his Times brother for denouncing d}Tiamiters, but because he was 
 doing it hypocritically — coming down heavily upon the Irish — or American- 
 Irish — offender, while letting the Continental offender down easily. "I regard 
 dynamiters," said Mr. Sullivan, "as criminals of the deepest dye. And as for 
 fiends, no man is a fiend," exclaimed Mr. Sullivan, loudly and sharply. At 
 this generous expression about human nature, Mr. Justice Day laughed, and 
 laughed again until he grew red in the face. He laughed almost as heartily as 
 he did when Sir Charles Russell was reading out Mr. Pigott's applications to 
 Mr. Forster for fresh loans. 
 
 After Mr. Sullivan there followed three witnesses from !Miltown Malbay in 
 county Clare. They were examined respecting The Times evidence on the 
 murder of Mike Moroney, and the intimidation of James Connell. On both 
 counts they contradicted The Times witnesses. The first of the three, Father 
 Stewart, was of opinion that the murder of Moroney was not of agrarian origin. 
 He thought it was the result of a private feud. The second witness, Mike 
 Killeen, secretaiy of the local branch of the Land League, denied that he had 
 summoned Connell to attend a League Court. And the third witness, James 
 Clancy, who was at one time president of the branch, denied that he had ever 
 threatened Connell with the boycott for refusing to become a member. Clancy 
 himself was evicted in 1881. " What have you been doing since? " asked Sir 
 Henry James. Oh, nothing; only "knocking about"; but the National 
 League had been giving him twenty-three shillings a week for the support of 
 his family, and he lived in one of the League cottages. Clancy's rent was 
 sixty-five pounds a year when he was evicted. He answered cheerfully and 
 pleasantly all along. But he nearly broke down, he stammered fiercely, when 
 he came to describe how the buildings which he himself had put up were 
 destroyed and carted off by the landlord, and how his children had suffered. 
 
 Lastly came ]Mr. John Ferguson of Glasgow, whose name and initials have 
 often been heard of in the course of the trial. His examination-in-chief — in 
 which he declared that if Parnellism had not been constitutional he would 
 have had nothing to do with it — occupied only a couple of minutes. But his 
 cross-examination filled part of the forenoon and the whole of the afternoon. 
 Yet this cross-examination was the most dismally dull and fruitless in the whole 
 course of this trial. The utmost it did was to give Mr. John Ferguson an 
 opportunity of proclaiming himself a disciple of John Stuart Mill and Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer. The great point at issue in the cross-examination was to 
 find out from Mr. Ferguson what had become of the missing Land League 
 books. And Mr. John Ferguson knew absolutely nothing. He was bom- 
 barded with questions — principally about the Tim Horan letter — Tim being 
 secretary of the Castleisland branch of the Land League, and the letter being 
 a request to the Central League office for money to be paid to certain men who 
 had been hurt in some mysterious fray, and about whom, said the letter, nobody, 
 except the doctor and the society, knew anything. The letter bore Mr. Fer- 
 guson's initials, but Mr. Ferguson had forgotten all about it, and he declared 
 that the veiy date of the endorsement showed that the letter must have been 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [May 28. 255 
 
 received when the League was about to be suppressed, and when therefore its 
 conckiding business was done in a hurry. Besides, said he, the letter was an 
 application for medical relief, which, speaking personally, he would not refuse 
 to give to a criminal, supposing he had it to give. 
 
 The letter from local secretary Tim Horan was the solitary proof — if it be a 
 proof — even of indirect support, by the Dublin office, of physical violence and 
 intimidation. One of the four who had been engaged in the adventure lost the 
 use of an eye, another was wounded in the body, but what the affair was in which 
 the men were engaged, neither counsel nor the prosecution could tell. From 
 beginning of his career, Mr. Ferguson had been opposed to violence in any 
 shape or form. " That's not in my line," he replied, when asked if he knew 
 anything of the story that the League money had been spent in sending Dutch 
 officers to South Africa, to help the Boers against the English, "I would 
 rather send the Boers arguments." Instead of spilling blood, he would 
 " spread the light," by writing and lecturing. Mr. Ferguson was organizing 
 Home Rule branches throughout the United Kingdom six years before the 
 foundation of the Lush Land League. And when the time came, he helped 
 ]Mr. Davitt to found the Land League. A Republican in politics, he helped 
 -Sir Charles Dilke once upon a time to " spread the light " of republicanism in 
 •Glasgow. 
 
 EIGHTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 May 28. 
 
 Mr. Reid began by giving the Court a pleasant surprise. Some of the lost 
 books of the Land League had been found. And Mr. Reid had them in 
 court — even the cash-book, as Mr. Reid blandly intimated, in reply to a 
 prompt and anxious question put by Mr. Justice Smith, The disappearance of 
 these books had long been the subject of unfriendly speculation — unfriendly to 
 the accused. The absence of the League books was one of the negative 
 grounds on which the Attorney-General based his charge of criminality against 
 the League. It was a somewhat comical element of the situation that the books 
 had been in the possession of a gentleman, T^Ir. Moloney, whom The Times 
 itself subpoenaed. 
 
 Mr. Reid having merely alluded to this, Sir Henry James rose to express 
 his desire that the motives of The Tivies counsel should not be misunderstood. 
 iSIr. ^Nlaloney was subpoenaed in order that he might identify handwriting ; 
 and " it is not to be supposed," added Sir Henry James, " that we knew there 
 were books in his possession, or that they could be procured through him." 
 
 Then began the examination of the first of nine witnesses. All the nine 
 were from county Cork. The first eight were questioned about outrages. They 
 declared that the League systematically denounced them. The first of the 
 nine, Mr. ■Nlackay, a journalist, who had attended large numbers of League 
 meetings, declared that these denunciations were so much a matter of fact that 
 reporters thought it not worth while to record them. O'Connell's warning 
 that " he who commits crime gives strength to the enemy " became, said this 
 witness, a hackneyed expression at League meetings. Similar testimony was 
 given by Canon Shinkwin, of Bantry, League President, who stated that he 
 would have had nothing to do with any League which encouraged crime in 
 any way ; by Father Malley, the parish priest of Drimoleague, who strongly 
 and wholly contradicted the murder story of a Times witness ; by the Protes- 
 tant rector of Drinagh, who turned out to be the funny witness of the day ; by 
 
256 Tuesday] Diary of ^May 28. 
 
 Father Morissey, of Ballinteer, who declared that the League branches in his 
 neighbourhood proposed to unite for the purpose of bringing criminals to 
 justice ; by Canon Ryan, of Aghada ; by Father Murphy, of Skull ; and by 
 Mr. Edward Raycroft, League official of the same parish. Mr. Healy's 
 evidence referred principally to the character of Irish jury trial?. The main 
 position sought to be established by Mr. Reid and his colleagues was that 
 landlord selfishness provoked the crimes which the League was successful in 
 preventing. Canon Shinkwin's evidence ended with a very interesting piece 
 of statistics, quoted by JMr. Reid, and showing how outrages and evictions 
 increased simultaneously from 1877 to 1882. If the figures for outrages alone 
 were given, some people might conclude that the new organization, the 
 League, was responsible for the increase. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Anderson was the first Irish Protestant pastor who appeared 
 before the Commission. Unlike most Protestant clergymen in Ireland, he is a 
 National leaguer. He is even a member of the League Committee. He was 
 elected to the post by Catholics. No religious jealousy? "Oh, no" — with 
 great emphasis on the "no" — "Catholics often came to consult me." "Always- 
 on good terms with the Catholics," exclaimed the rector, smiling and striking 
 his palms together. " Landgrabbing ? " Why, Mr. Anderson once upon a 
 time advertised a forthcoming sermon of his on " The Sin of Landgrabbing." 
 And the result was one of the biggest congregations he ever had in his life ; 
 the Catholics came in crowds. Here the worthy rector laughed heartily, and 
 bent as he laughed. 
 
 Boycotting ? Nonsense. There was a feeble sort of a boycott, now and 
 again, ^^^ly, the only decent boycott in the whole of Balinteer was the 
 boycott to which he himself was subjected. Here he laughed again, threw his 
 head up, next stared at his boots, laughed again in the greatest good humour. 
 How boycotted ? Oh ! here you are ; and he produced a pinkish-yellow 
 paper, showing how the landlords, because of his League principles, cut down 
 their contribution to his stipend. The courageous rector did not seem to mind 
 it in the least. Again he became merr)% His wonderful knack of changing 
 all in an instant his laughing face into one of fixed solemnity was comical in 
 the extreme. He might have made his fortune by it in a less sacred profession. 
 " Here's a funny thing," said he ; " Colonel Chute boycotted me by decreasing 
 my stipend, and then his tenants came to me to ask me to lend them money to 
 pay his rent." Here ^Ir. Anderson fairly gave way. He laughed until his 
 face grew red. He looked up and down, and round about. Everybody 
 laughed. In the twinkling of an eye Mr. Anderson's features became grave. 
 He stuffed his papers into his pockets, and walked off. 
 
 During the examination of the next witness an interesting conversation arose 
 between the President and counsel about the Whitsuntide holidays and the 
 probable duration of the trial. Mr. Reid asked for an adjournment from next 
 Friday to the 18th of June. The Attorney-General did not object ; nor did 
 the President, except that he first wanted to know when the case for the 
 defence was likely to end. Mr. Reid hinted that that depended upon his friend 
 the enemy — to wit, the cross-examiners. Did Mr. Reid think that it would 
 end before the long vacation (August I2th)? Mr. Reid certainly thought it 
 \vould ; in fact, he thought it would be done with " early in July." Where- 
 upon the President remarked that he gladly granted the adjournment asked 
 for. Half-an-hour or three-quarters of an hour later, when Sir Henry James 
 was cross-examining at some length, Mr. Reid repented him of what he said 
 about " early in July." He started up and withdrew his half promise. Mr. 
 Justice Day smiled. So did a good many other people who -were present. 
 
Wednesdayl the Parnell Commission. [May 29. 257 J 
 
 EIGHTY-EIGHTH DAY. j 
 
 May 29. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Healy, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Arthur O'Connor were ex- 
 amined to-day ; the first-named for only a few minutes, in conclusion of his j 
 evidence of the preceding day. Mr. Joseph Biggar, with his elbows on the I 
 ledge of his box, talked for four hours. He and Sir Henry James got on j 
 very well together — the reason perhaps being that they are good-humoured j 
 personages both. One could not help speculating what would have happened I 
 if the renowned member for Cavan had been subjected to the knock-down, ] 
 method of the Attorney-General. But ]Mr. Reid's turn came before Sir Henry ] 
 James's ; and to Mr. Reid Mr, Joseph Biggar described how he was an Isaac - i 
 Buttite in 1871, and a Fenian (and a Supreme Councillor of Fenians) in j 
 1875-6 ; and how in 1877 he was expelled from the Fenian Brotherhood i 
 because he voted against a resolution of theirs condemning reliance upon j 
 Parliamentary action instead of upon physical force. 
 
 Mr. Biggar flatly contradicted one or two stories which had been told \ 
 
 about him by witnesses for the prosecution. There was the story of the ] 
 
 informer Leavy, who said that Mr. Biggar offered him a bribe of one hundred 
 pounds for his vote in the explusion business. " Not the slightest foundation " ' 
 
 for it, said ]Mr. Biggar. Nor was it true that, at the great meeting in the \ 
 
 Rotunda, he seconded a resolution against the definite adoption of constitutional 
 agitation — that is, against Parliamentary action — for one reason among others, I 
 
 that such a resolution was not even moved. As for the Land League, he said, 
 very emphatically, that at the time of its estabHshment, some " combination " , 
 
 of the kind was "indispensable." He knew not, nor believed, that the League \ 
 
 had ever caused, or connived at, outrage. As for the " Invincibles," not until j 
 
 long after the Phoenix Park crime did he even hear the name of them. Sir i 
 
 Richard Webster, in his opening speech, had said that League emissaries had 
 received from ISIr. Biggar, who was one of the treasurers of the Land League, I 
 
 sums of money for the planning and execution of outrages. " Not the slightest i 
 
 foundation " for that story either, answered Mr. Biggar. His examination by ' 
 
 Mr. Reid lasted only twenty minutes. 
 
 Sir Henry James's cross-examination was a sort of free-and-easy colloquial 
 swamp, spreading out in all directions and ending nowhere in particular. As 
 treasurer of the Land League, ^Ix, Biggar ought to know about the League's, 
 cash-books, ledgers, letter books. But that was only Sir Henry James's way , 
 
 of looking at it. ]\Ir. Biggar knew nothing whatever about them, nor took ' 
 
 any trouble to know. Mr. Biggar was only an ornamental treasurer — a sleep- 1 
 
 ing partner in an office of which the active partner was Mr. Egan. But Mr. j 
 
 Egan, being for the moment in the United States, could give no help to Sir j 
 
 Henry James. INIr. Biggar did not even know whether ]Mr. Egan before i 
 
 leaving for America made over to any one the charge of the League funds in j 
 
 his possession, nor was Sir Henry James successful in identifying Mr. Biggar's j 
 
 Fenian oath. The Fenian oath which Sir Henry read out in court was not | 
 
 the one Mr. Biggar swore to. And what the precise terms of the real oath j 
 
 were Mr. Biggar could not recollect. He could only say that they were less .j 
 
 grandiloquent than Sir Henry James's. 1 
 
 As the aim of the Fenians was to bring about an armed insurrection, and as I 
 
 the subscriptions of the brethren were supposed to be devoted to the purchase | 
 
 of arms, Sir Henry thought he could catch the member for Cavan by getting , 
 
 him to say what his subscription was. Subscription ? -Nlr. Biggar never paid ' 
 
 any. Nor was he ever asked for one. 
 
 Mr, Biggar, as he now explained, became a member of the brotherhood with 
 the intention, as he expressed it, of checkmating the more violent among them, 
 
 i8 
 
258 Thursday] Diary of [May 30. 
 
 and of converting them to the constitutional movement. He was a proselytizer. 
 In the long run, the brethren invited this easy-going Fenian — this unsatis- 
 factory revolutionist — to resign. He preferred to fight them, so they turned 
 him out, and Mr. Biggar had had nothing to do with them from that day to 
 this. 
 
 Several of Mr. Biggar's speeches were quoted — or supposed to be quoted, for 
 Mr. Biggar repeatedly called in question the accuracy of the reports in the Irish 
 papers. In one of these speeches, delivered at a banquet given to Mr. Parnell in 
 Cork, Mr. Biggar was reported to have said that if the constitutional agitation 
 failed, Ireland would produce another Hartmann — of the type of the man who 
 attempted the Czar's life. Without admitting the accuracy of the report Mr. 
 Biggar said he could only have meant that, under certain circumstances, the 
 Irish people might be driven into outrage. Mr. Biggar was extremely frank 
 on the subject of boycotting. Mr. Biggar would boycott anyone who "de- 
 served " it, even to the extent of depriving him of the necessaries of life, and 
 of cutting him in chapel ; he would draw the line only at physical violence. 
 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor was examined after Mr, Biggar. He described briefly 
 how he went to Dublin to supervise, for a few days, the Land League office, 
 the business of which had fallen into utter confusion in consequence of the im- 
 prisonment of its chiefs, and the absence, through illness, of Mr. Sexton. He 
 found " hundreds of letters " unanswered, and the books in a state of chaos. 
 It was when the office was in that condition that the application from Tim 
 Horan (repeatedly alluded to in previous evidence) arrived, and was granted. 
 But Mr. O'Connor remembered nothing whatever of the transaction. 
 
 EIGHTY-NINTH DAY. 
 
 May 30. 
 
 On resuming his examination of Mr. Arthur O'Connor, ISIr. Lockwood began 
 with America, and in the course of a few minutes Mr. O'Connor summed up 
 his experiences of twenty-seven States. Mr. O'Connor's American tour was 
 made in 1887, Sir T. Esmonde accompanying him. They went to thank the 
 Americans for their kindly help in the past, and to ask for its continuance. 
 Mr. O'Connor's American experiences were a repetition of Mr. Parnell's. 
 Everywhere he and his friends were most warmly received by the best — intel- 
 lectually and socially — in the States, by State Governors, Judges of the 
 Supreme Court, members of the learned professions. At one of the great 
 receptions accorded to the two visitors, the gentleman now President of the 
 United States was in the chair. And the future President there and then 
 declared that " every honest man would rather be William O'Brien in Tulla- 
 more Gaol than the Lord- Lieutenant in Dublin Castle. This little story of 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor's was all the more interesting because President 
 Harrison had just turned one of TAe Times "criminals," Mr. Patrick Egan, 
 into United States Minister to Chili. It is needless to add that Mr. O'Connor 
 declared that he had nothing to do with secret societies in the course of his 
 American tour. It is equally needless to quote any of the extracts which Mr. 
 Lockwood read from Mr. O'Connor's speeches by way of showing how entirely 
 open and constitutional Mr. O'Connor's business in America was. It w^as an 
 odd circumstance, brought out by Mr. Lockwood, that Mr. O'Connor was a 
 member of a Royal Commission appointed by a Tory INIinistry, at the very 
 time when, in common with most of the Irish party, he lay under a charge of 
 criminal association. 
 
Thuvsday] the Pavnell Commission. [May 30. 259 
 
 iNIr. O'Connor was cross-examined by Mr. Atkinson — principally, of course, 
 about the League books, and in particular about the Timothy Horan letter. 
 Mr. O'Connor took a good deal of trouble to get Mr. Atkinson to understand 
 that his supervision of the Land League business was strictly confined to the 
 short period succeeding the date at which he took charge of it ; and that this 
 restriction was necessitated by his absolute inability to overtake the arrears, 
 and restore order into the confusion which he found in the League offices. 
 Mr. O'Connor had no previous experience of the Land League work ; and of 
 its books, or what became of them, or who had charge of them, he knew 
 nothing. Nor had he any knowledge of the Tim Horan letter. As the letter 
 was addressed, not to the League Secretary, but to a head clerk by name, he 
 doubted very much whether the letter was ever passed through the League 
 register. 
 
 Mr. O'Connor having expressed his belief that some of the League books 
 were seized at the time by the authorities (presumably the Castle) and retained 
 by them ever since, the President promptly directed that inquiries should be 
 made to ascertain whether that was the fact. And then it looked as if 
 Mr. Atkinson had discovered a mare's nest. "Just examine that cash-book 
 of the Land League, INIr. O'Connor. You see it extends over a period of 
 weeks and months ; and yet it looks as if it had been written right off. Isn't 
 the ink the same all through, Mr. O'Connor?" ]Mr. O'Connor replied that it 
 was black ink all through. " Yes; but from the same bottle, Mr. O'Connor ? " 
 The book was passed up for the President's inspection. The President did not 
 appear to see anything suspicious in it. He merely thought it looked as if it 
 had been written by "the same clerk." In plain English Mr. Atkinson was 
 suggesting the notion of forgery. Glancing at The Times people, Mr. 
 O'Connor remarked, with a dry little smile, that he was "' not an expert." 
 
 Mr. Atkinson then turned off to a different subject, Mr. O'Connor's 
 speeches about grabbers, and Mr. O'Connor's notions of boycotting. Mr. 
 O'Connor frankly informed him that he still regarded the grabber as "a 
 receiver of stolen goods," and that if a boycott should drive the grabber into 
 the workhouse which sheltered his victims, it would serve the grabber right. 
 At the end, Mr. Atkinson asked Mr. O'Connor if in one of his speeches he 
 thanked God for a bad harvest ! The answer was a quiet but indignant 
 *' Never.'' Unsophisticated persons may fail to see why J\lr. O'Connor should 
 thank God for a bad harvest. Bad harvests meant no rents for landlords. 
 Paddy cutting off his nose to spite his face. Before he left the witness-box Mr. 
 O'Connor stated that of the hundreds of speeches which he had delivered, only 
 one was put in by The Times. That solitary speech was supposed by The 
 Tijfies to have caused a murder perpetrated four years after its delivery. 
 
 Next came Mr. Justin McCarthy, Vice-President of the Irish Parliamentary 
 party. As Mr. McCarthy never held any office in the Land League, and as 
 he had had nothing to do with the details of management of the National 
 League, it followed that counsel on either side had little or nothing of much 
 consequence to ask him. Still, the performance must be gone through — for 
 was he not one of the incriminated sixty-five ? People must have been amused 
 to hear questions — put with all the gravity in the world — as to whether Mr. 
 Justin McCarthy was mixed up in bloodthirsty conspiracies. Being President 
 of the English branch of the National League, Mr. jNIcCarthy was, of course, 
 infrequent communication with its secretary, Mr. Frank Byrne, "I found 
 him," said Mr. McCarthy, "a straightforward, business man." "I never 
 heard or saw a word from him that would lead me to suspect he had anything 
 to do with the Phoenix Park murders." Mr. Murphy tried Mr. McCarthy on 
 the subject of boycotting. Would it be right to boycott a herd, with his 
 family of six children, merely because the herd worked for a farmer who 
 occupied an " evicted farm ?" Yes, " that might be necessary and right " — 
 
26o Friday] Diary of [May 31. 
 
 meaning in the case of a farm "evicted " for non-payment of unjust rent. In 
 his re-examination by Mr. Reid, IMr. McCarthy found his opportunity to re- 
 mind the Court that landlord eviction of a man with six children was at 
 least as harsh a measure as the tenants' boycotting of him. 
 
 After ]Mr. ^McCarthy came INIr. George Lewis, to say what he knew about 
 the League books. All he knew was that he had put into Court every single 
 Land League book and document in his possession ; and that he had invited 
 Mr. Soames to come to his office and inspect all he had, but that Mr. Soames 
 never came. He was asked by the Attorney-General why he had not inquired 
 after this, that, and the other League book ; why he had not followed the 
 movements of this, that, and the other Lady Land Leaguer. It looked as if 
 Sir Richard Webster was asking Mr. Lewis why he had not assisted Mr. 
 Soames in getting up The Times case. 
 
 NINETIETH DAY. 
 
 May 31. 
 
 The net result of the cross-examination of Mr. Arthur O'Connor to-day was 
 to absolve the League of all except a merely technical responsibility for the 
 famous "moonlighting letter." Probably we have heard the last of this letter, 
 to which The Times people have attributed such great importance — and natu- 
 rally, for the letter was the one proof which they had discovered, in nine years' 
 League histoiy, of any participation, direct and indirect, by the central office 
 of the Land and National Leagues in outrage. There is in one of the central 
 office books before the Commission a record of the payment of money, for the 
 relief of "labourers," to Mr. T. Horan, secretary of the Castleisland Branch 
 in county Cork. The theoiy of the cross-examining counsel was that this pay- 
 ment for "labourers" was in response to Koran's appeal for relief to the men 
 who had been wounded in a secret expedition. In looking through the books 
 in the witness-box ISIr. Arthur O'Connor, who is sharp at accounts, gave 
 reasons for believing that the " labourers' " grant was in reply to another 
 application — that there were two different transactions. The truth then would 
 appear to be that the labourers' relief had been authorized by the League 
 Committee, and that for the medical grant to the men wounded in the 
 midnight affray Mr. Quin, a clerk in the League Office, was personally 
 responsible. For more than half-an-hour Mr. Atkinson laboured, and be- 
 laboured, this authorization of the secret grant — with the object of finding 
 out whether Mr. O'Connor knew anything of the transaction. All that Mr. 
 O'Connor would do was to repeat, over and over, that he knew absolutely 
 nothing. "I understand," said Sir James Hannen, "that as far as you. 
 personally are concerned, you never saw this letter at all." " I am perfectly 
 sure I never did," Mr. O'Connor replied ; "if I had, I would have sent back 
 a reply that the Land League funds were not to be used for such purposes, "it 
 was a most improper application." 
 
 After Mr. Arthur O'Connor came INIr. Edward Harrington, member for 
 West Kerr}-. There was a laugh when 'Mx. Harrington said he resided in 
 Kerry " when permitted." But it was not always a laughing matter to Mr. 
 Harrington ; for he alluded to his imprisonments, from one of which he had 
 but lately been released in order to enable him to appear before the Commis- 
 sion. Since his arrival in London, Mr. Harrington's hair has grown a little. 
 Mr. Harrington has endured his prison hardships fairly well ; so has Mr. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [June i8. 261 
 
 Condon, ]M.P., who has arrived within the last day or two. But as for Mr. 
 John O'Connor, many who knew him well failed to recognize him. His 
 appearance shocked them. He looked fifteen years older. 
 
 Mr. Edward Harrington made an excellent 'witness. He showed the most 
 astonishingly comprehensive and minute acquaintance with the history and 
 condition of Kerry. The Land League had been a whole year in existence 
 before a branch of it was founded in j\Ir. Harrington's locality — Tralee. Mr. 
 Harrington beheved that the establishment of local branches in Kerry was 
 necessitated by the rapidly increasing rate at which the landlords were evicting 
 their tenants. In the county of Keny there were only seventy evictions in 
 1879 ; but there were one hundred and eighty-one in 1880, and the numbers 
 increased largely in succeeding years. It was these evictions which, in Mr. 
 Harrington's view, led to riots and outrages, which the police endeavoured to 
 suppress by capturing crowds at haphazard. He knew of one instance in which 
 a man, detained thirteen months in prison without trial, was eventually dis- 
 charged for want of evidence. The natural result was complete mistrust in 
 law and justice in Kerry. 
 
 Mr._ Murphy tried hard, and long, to overthrow Mr. Harrington's statistics, 
 but without success. jNIr. JNIurphy next tried to prove that at least one murderer 
 was in the pay of the League. This was Sylvester Poff— of whom Mr. Har- 
 rington spoke as follows : " I don't believe there's a man in Kerry who thinks 
 this day that there was anything against that man. On my oath, I solemnly 
 believe he w-as as innocent as any man in this court." "Were you present 
 at his trial? " Mr. INIurphy asked. " I was present at his examination before 
 the magistrate, but not at his trial— if you can call it a trial." "But," Mr. 
 Harrington continued, " I have sufficient facts to account for what I say, and 
 I invite you to examine me on them." The condemned man, said Mr. Har- 
 rington, was not a member of the League ; and whatever pecuniary assistance 
 he had must have been given him only because he was an evicted tenant, or 
 because he was one among many "suspects," for the maintenance of whose 
 families the League was raising public subscriptions. 
 
 Mr. Harrington threw some strange light upon a story told in court by 
 process-server Herbert, a Times witness. This man Herbert said he had been 
 shot at. But, said Mr. Harrington, he did not tell their lordships that at the 
 time he was supposed to have been attacked he had a revolver in his pocket, 
 and that several holes were found in his coat-tails. ^Mr. Harrington believed 
 that in_ fumbling for his revolver the weapon must have gone off accidentally, 
 wounding Herbert in the wrist, and that Herbert invented the story of the 
 niurderous assault upon him. Mr. Harrington was put in prison just at the 
 time when he was investigating the Herbert story. As to boycotting, there 
 was too little of it in Kerry, said ]Mr. Harrington. Had there been more 
 boycotting there w^ould have been fewer outrages. The day's evidence ended 
 with ]vlr. Harrington's citation of instances in w^hich the League, and he him- 
 self individually, had not only denounced outrages, but done" their utmost to 
 assist the authorities in finding out the perpetrators. 
 
 NINETY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 June 18. 
 
 After eighteen days' silence, Mr. Murphy's cross-examination of Mr. Edward 
 Harrington was resumed this morning without preface, without preliminary 
 
262 Tuesday] Diary of [June 18. 
 
 flourish of any sort, bluntly, baldly, abruptly, like an organ-grinder's tune, at 
 the point where it abruptly broke off. Mr. Murphy, Q.C., is a steady, patient 
 hand at the l^ellows. For two hours he led Mr. Harrington the old dance to 
 the old grind. The number of visitors to the court was unusually small. In 
 the side gallery sat the wife of ]\Ir. Alexander vSullivan, of Chicago. The 
 Times counsel were in full strength. On the Nationalist side, Mr. Reid, Q.C, 
 was the leading advocate present. 
 
 In order to show that Mr. E. Harrington, in Keriy, was not an upholder 
 of justice, Mr. Murphy quoted some extracts from The Kerry Sentinel (Mr. 
 Harrington's paper), in which sentences passed upon certain agrarian offenders 
 were vigorously denounced. ]\Ir. Harrington, in the \\dtness-box, declared that 
 the sentences were a violation of justice. Other people charged, said Mr. 
 Harrington, escaped the punishment due to their crimes — and they escaped it 
 because they paid the landlords' rents. Here Sir James Hannen interposed 
 with the remark that no part of his duty caused a judge so much anxiety as 
 the meting out of sentences ; and he asked Mr. E. Harrington whether he still 
 felt it right to characterize the action of Judge Lawson in the terms vvhich he 
 had applied to it six or seven years ago. With the utmost deliberation, and 
 without the slightest pause or embarrassment, Mr. Harrington replied that he 
 would "not hesitate to write the same words again under the same circum- 
 stances." 
 
 Then iNIr. Murphy approached him from another direction. At the time of 
 the Phcenix Park trials, a Dublin correspondent wrote to The Sentinel a letter 
 in which informers like Delaney were described as "craven cowards" and 
 " as kindly helping to expedite matters by pleading guilty," and at which more 
 reticent witnesses at the trials were called " noble exceptions." JMr. Har- 
 rington expressed his belief that the writer of the letter had no sympathy 
 whatever with the murderers ; but he added, frankly and unreservedly, that he 
 did not approve of the correspondent's language, and that had he seen it 
 beforehand it would not have been admitted into the columns of The Sentinel. 
 But again, with the utmost frankness, Mr. Harrington said that he accepted 
 full responsibility for whatever appeared in his paper. 
 
 Not satisfied with JNIr. Harrington's unreserved admissions. ^Ir. Murphy 
 pressed him with this unpleasant question, "Are you not ashamed of it ? " 
 (the Dublin letter). Sir James Hannen interfered at once, remarking that 
 such questions were "superfluous," aud calculated to "give the witness pain." 
 There was an angry flash in Islx. Harrington's eyes at the moment when the 
 President interfered. But in a minute or two more there came about a little 
 collision between ]Mr. Harrington and the President himself. Mr. INIurphy, 
 turning oft" to another part of the inquiiy, was questioning ^^Ir. Harrington 
 about his own speeches, when the latter suddenly and warmly protested against 
 the unfair manner in which " the Government," for the purposes of the Com- 
 mission, had selected speeches which might damage the Nationalist cause, and 
 carefully ignored speeches, such as his own, in which outrages were denounced 
 in the strongest terms. " The Government have nothing to do with this inquiry," 
 exclaimed Sir James Hannen, sharply, " the witnesses are ordinary witnesses." 
 " But I am not able to discriminate, my lord," said ]\Ir. Harrington. " You 
 should," was the President's answer. "I will not allow such allusions to 
 be made to the Government." This was an interesting part of the cross- 
 examination ; for Mr. Harrington reiterated his statement respectfully, but in 
 his most emphatic manner, that the police shorthand reporters were incapable 
 of taking shorthand reports ; that their reports were merely summaries of 
 what they read in the papers. Mr. Harrington strongly protested that one of 
 The Times constabulary witnesses, Huggins, though present during its de- 
 liver}^, made no report whatever of a speech in which he, J\Ir. Harrington, 
 inveighed for nearly an hour against perpetrators of outrage. The cross- 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [June i8. 263 
 
 examination of Mr. f larrington ended with a candid statement of his respecting 
 his defiance of evictors ; and with an explanation of " a threatening notice" for 
 which he had been sentenced to six months' imprisonment. As to the first, 
 Mr. Harrington told the Court that he had repeatedly "kicked open" the 
 doors of houses from which poor women and children had been driven out by 
 the bailiffs. " I made them re-enter," said Mr. Harrington. "I found them 
 by the roadside in the cold of November and December ; and many of the 
 women were suckling their infants. Some of these farms were worth only two 
 pounds a year, but the houses upon them, built by the evicted tenants them- 
 selves, were worth twenty." As to the "threatening notice" published or 
 reproduced in The Se^itinel (by a misapprehension, as Mr. Harrington said), 
 the witness maintained that the very terms of it showed that it was only a 
 practical joke; for the "notice," though warning people who refused to 
 become members of an "Invincible" branch about to be formed, stated 
 publicly and plainly where and when the inaugural meeting of this criminal 
 society would be held. 
 
 All the day's witnesses were from Kerry. The next witness, Patrick Kenny, 
 of Castleisland, enjoyed the distinction of having been "censured" by his 
 fellow-leaguers for having shaken hands with Earl Spencer, Lord-Lieutenant 
 of Ireland. Mr. Kenny, president of the Castleisland Land and National 
 League branches was, of course, cross-examined with especial reference to the 
 famous Tim Horan letter and the books of the Castleisland branch. He told 
 his cross-examiner, Mr. Atkinson, that he knew nothing of the letter, nothing 
 of the mysterious expedition for which League money was said to have been 
 paid— nothing save what he had read in the reports of the evidence given 
 before the Commission. He knew nothing about one of Horan's friends 
 having lost an eye, or about another having been wounded in the leg. But 
 all that "might" have happened, said Mr. Kenny, airily. Mr. Kenny's 
 "might's" and "may be's " rather exasperated Mr. Atkinson. President, 
 though he was, jMr. Kenny knew nothing of the branch books, nothing about 
 subscriptions, nothing about correspondence with Dublin. But of course there 
 "might" have been correspondence and fully-kept account books. It was 
 not his business to trouble himself about such things. Nor did Mr. Kenny 
 appear to consider it to be his duty to act the part of rogue-catcher for the 
 Irish Government. Mr. Kenny could not say positively whether he had ever 
 seen the book kept by Tim Horan. But of course " I might" have seen it, 
 remarked Mr. Kenny, turning to their lordships, who were tired of him. 
 
 Mr. Kenny was succeeded in the box by a Kerry priest, Father Godley, 
 who drew the boycotting line at refusal to supply necessaries of life, but who 
 also maintained that the sufferings of boycotted people who took "evicted" 
 farms were not greater than those of people who had been turned out. He 
 told his examiner (Mr. Arthur Russell) that from the altar, and in private, he 
 had always denounced outrage. Next came D. F. O'Connor, secretary of the 
 Abbeydorney branch. He had with him a black pormanteau, containing League 
 books and other documents, from which he was prepared to show how the 
 League had persistently been denouncing crime. Some extracts from these 
 documents were read. The last witness was Mr. Lyne, of Killarney, who 
 described how at a public meeting he heard Mr. Davitt make his cart-tail 
 speech, and Mr. Healy propose the formation of a vigilance committee for the 
 discovery of outragemongers. Among several instances of hardship, IMr. Lyne 
 mentioned the deaths from exposure of children who were ill of scarlet_ fever 
 before they were evicted. As for the murder of D. Leahy (mentioned in the 
 evidence, and attributed by the prosecution to the influence of the League), 
 Mr. Lyne said that Leahy was universally popular, that the regret for his 
 death was general, and that almost all the leaguers of the district attended 
 his funeral. 
 
264 Wednesday] Diary of [J^t^J^^ 19 • 
 
 NINETY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 JUxNE 19. 
 
 Counting O'Connor, ^vho was recalled for a few minutes, and Mr. Lyne, of 
 Killarney, whose examination was resumed, seven witnesses gave their testi- 
 mony to-day. They were all from county Kerry. The joke of the day was 
 the joint work of Sir Henry James and John Greany, a Kerry man, with a vast, 
 wild stock of hair about his face, and a broad brogue. Sir Henry asked him 
 where the address of a certain leaguer was to be found. " He's in eternity," 
 quoth Mr. Greany. " Is he going to be called? " inquired Sir Henry, suavely. 
 Mr. Greany stared. It turned out that Sir Henry James thought Greany said 
 that the missing man was " in Italy" — which is less vague than " Eternity." 
 Mr. Greany, a strenuous witness, maintained that his part of Kerry, at any 
 rate, was all the better for the League, which persistently denounced crime. 
 
 When O'Connor w-as recalled, Sir Richard Webster read some extracts from 
 League books produced by the witness the day before, from which it appeared 
 that O'Connor had once sent a kind of circular letter to the League branches, 
 advising them to forbid people from hiring threshing-machines from farmers 
 who were not members of the League. The Attorney-General appeared pretty 
 well satisfied with this instance of an attempt to increase membership by 
 intimidation. But Mr. Reid read a letter from Islr. T. Harrington, secretary 
 of the Central League office, in which the attempt was roundly denounced as 
 "idiotic," and the offending branch advised to close its doors if it could not 
 help the national cause in any other way than by passing such "stupid" 
 resolutions. There could be no mistake about the meaning of the message 
 from Dublin. 
 
 After this prompt and successful countermove by Mr. Reid, Mr. Lyne, the 
 Killarney merchant was questioned. Examined by iNlr. Davitt, iSlr. Lyne 
 said he attributed crime to landlord injustice. He did not complain of it, but 
 as a matter of fact the landlords and their people deprived Mv. Lyne of their 
 custom as soon as he began to take an active part in League work. 
 
 A good witness was Father Lawler, parish priest of Killoughlin. He scouted 
 the landlord and landlord's agent theory of a pre-League Arcadia. There were 
 outrages before 1879; he named the victims of some of them. And before 
 1879 landlords confiscated their tenants' improvements. And in the year 
 before the foundation of the League the whole of his parish population, save 
 twelve farmers, were in receipt of relief — to which the landlords contributed 
 nothing. Combination was, for the tenants, said Father Lawler, an absolute 
 necessity ; and the League supplied the means. It was his firm belief that the 
 League saved the tenants, and that it largely reduced crime. He was frank on 
 the subject of boycotting. Of course the leaguers sat " in court " over 
 agrarian disputes ; and w^hen a man refused to surrender a farm from which 
 his predecessor had been unjustly evicted, why the leaguers took ]\Ir. Parnell's 
 advice: they "avoided" him— as Sir Charles Russell would say, they sent 
 him to Coventry. In that Father Lawler saw nothing wrong. 
 
 The next witness was a priest. Father Daniel Harrington, president of the 
 Listowel Catholic ^Seminary. He corroborated the preceding witness's testi- 
 mony to the effect that the League prevented wholesale clearances of tenants, 
 and caused a diminution in crime. Speaking of the Phoenix Park murders, 
 he said that when the news reached Listowel, the town went into mourning 
 and the school children marched through the streets with crape on their arms. 
 It was Father Harrington's opinion that police agents sometimes manufactured 
 outrages. He mentioned one such offender, by name Cullinane. "Where is 
 he? " asked Mr. Atkinson. " The Government knows best about that," was 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [June 20. 265 
 
 the answer. " Did you ever exhort your people to try and bring criminals to 
 justice?" ^Nlr. Atkinson continued. " I might as well," replied Father Har- 
 rington, " ask them to capture Jack the Ripper." Good — though the Ripper 
 was not then in existence. 
 
 Next, Mr. John Shea, proprietor of a hotel at Glenbeigh, described how 
 completely free of crime the place was during the terrible evictions of 18S7. 
 This he attributed to the influence of the League. Of John Greany, of Knock- 
 nagoshen, we have already spoken. The last witness, Thomas J. O'Connor, 
 of Knocknagoshen, contradicted the story of a Ti7?ies witness named Tobin, 
 that he, O'Connor, had offered Tobin five pounds if he would "lift" some- 
 body's cattle. 
 
 NINETY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 June 20. 
 
 Since the previous sitting Sir Henry James had looked over the League 
 books produced in court by O'Connor of Knocknagoshen. Among themhe 
 discovered a quaint resolution by the local branch — a resolution condemning 
 those who "had issued threatening notices against and poisoned the hens of 
 Mary O' Sullivan." ]Most of the resolutions condemned outrages as the work 
 of low fellows, unworthy to be called Irishmen. In fact, it was not quite clear 
 to outsiders why Sir Henry James read out these resolutions ; they might as 
 appropriately have been quoted by counsel for the defence. However, before 
 eleven o'clock Sir Henry James was done with the Knocknagoshen League 
 records, and to O'Connor of Knocknagoshen succeeded O'Connor of the 
 Scotland division of Liverpool. 
 
 " T. P." was examined by Mr. Lockwood. Having given brief particulars 
 about his birthplace — picturesque Athlone — about his beginnings in journalism, 
 twenty-two years ago, and about his election for Galway and for Liverpool, 
 Mr. T. P. O'Connor said that from what he remembered of the time, secret 
 .societies existed in the Athlone region during his boyhood. Ribbonism, secret 
 association for the commission of crime, was the subject of common talk there 
 in 1866-7. Before the foundation of the Land League in 1879, said Mr. 
 O'Connor, the Irish tenants were unprotected against rack-rent and eviction. 
 Combination was necessary, and organization ; and as a matter of fact, Mr. 
 O'Connor himself it was who suggested the formation of .the Land League 
 organizing body, of which so much has been heard in the course of the present 
 trial. 
 
 To show what was the complexion of Mr. T. P. O'Connor's Land League 
 politics, Mr. Lockwood read out one of iSIr. O'Connor's speeches, which was 
 delivered in September, 1880, and which advocated the extension, with fair 
 compensation to landlords, of peasant proprietorship in Ireland, partly on the 
 ground that such extension would promote social stability and security. When 
 Mr. Parnell was in the witness-box he described Mr. T. P. O'Connor as one of 
 the moderate members of the party ; and the speech quoted by Mr. Lockwood 
 answered to the description. 
 
 Continuing the story of his career, Mr. O'Connor said he had opposed 
 -'tooth and nail" the Coercion Act of 1881. He spoke contemptuously of 
 this Act, saying it was based on statistics of crime which included such offences 
 as upsetting a beehive and spilling a barrel of tar. From this subject Mr. 
 Lockwood passed to Mr. O'Connor's American tour of 188 1-2. Like Mr. 
 Parnell (and to quote ]Mr. Cook), Mr. O'Connor personally conducted his 
 own tour ; no Clan-na-Gael managers, nor any other managers, had any 
 
266 Thursday'] Diary of [June 20. 
 
 control over it. And like ]Mr. Parnell, Mr, O'Connor had to complain of 
 the lack of organized help during his tour in the States. In the whole of this 
 tour Mr. O'Connor only once heard discussion about a dynamite policy. This 
 was in the course of talk with Plnerty, who " said something to the effect that 
 any means were justifiable for the obtaining of what the Irish wanted." "I 
 strongly denounced " that view, said Mr. O'Connor. 
 
 Coming to Mr. Parnell's payment of one hundred pounds to Frank Bryne» 
 Mr. O'Connor said he had no distinct recollection of that particular payment, 
 but that it was a perfectly ordinary transaction between the Dublin League, 
 which had money to spare, and the London League, which was too often 
 impecunious. But this explanation of what The Times alleged to be a murder- 
 grant is now so well known that we need not repeat it. The examination -in- 
 chief ended with an emphatic declaration by ?klr. O'Connor that the effect of 
 the Parnell movement was to substitute constitutional agitation for violence, 
 and open combination for secret association. " Have you ever," said Mr. 
 Lockwood, " lent any countenance to crime or outrage? " " I have never," 
 replied Mr. O'Connor, " heard it suggested that I had." 
 
 Mr. Ronan jumped up to cross-examine. He began with the Parnell move- 
 ment, of which Mr. O'Connor had just spoken. " Tell me," said :\Ir. Ronan, 
 excitedly, " the beginning, not of the Land League or of the National League, 
 but of the Parnell movement." A wide question, and as vague as it was 
 wide. It amused Mr. Ronan's hearers. " ^^^lat do you meaii?" said Mr. 
 O'Connor, almost under his breath, and raising his eyebrows. "I should 
 say," exclaimed INIr. O'Connor at last, "that the Parnell movement began 
 three centuries ago." Mr. Ronan looked troubled, and the Court laughed. 
 Than Mr. Ronan dived into a pile of books — a book by -Virs. Alexander* 
 Sullivan, of Chicago, to which Mr. O'Connor wrote a preface ; a book by John 
 Devoy ; and Mr. T. P. O'Connor's own book on the Parnell movement. Mr. 
 Ronan thought that because ISIr. O'Connor wrote a preface to -Mrs. SuUivan's 
 book, he would fix certain hea%'y responsibilities upon him, and he thought he 
 could prove from the book that the Parnell movement was an American birth 
 of the year 1878. But coming to details, ]Mr. O'Connor assigned the birth of 
 the Parnell movement to 1879 and Irishtown. The more Mr." Ronan searched 
 among his books for proofs of his American theory, the more excited he 
 became. He plunged through his extracts nervously, noisily, hurriedly, here, 
 there, and everywhere, until at last the President remarked, with an air of 
 comic despair, that the whole thing was growing like a " Chinese puzzle." 
 Mr. Ronan went at " T. P." like a barking terrier at a taciturn, good- 
 natured mastiff. He was making hard efforts to wring something treasonable 
 out of ]Mr. O'Connor's American speeches. Had Mr. O'Connor said that 
 British rule in Ireland was without legal and moral sanction? "Certainly," 
 said Mr. O'Connor, "British rule in Ireland, being against the wishes of the 
 Irish people, was without moral sanction ; it might be legal because every 
 Government was de facto legal." And he added, in a quiet, easy way, that 
 the present Government in Ireland was exactly in the above position. 
 
 Next Mr. Ronan tried, but unsuccessfully, to get 2^Ir. O'Connor to admit 
 that there was an encouragement to murder in a passage of one of his 
 American speeches, in which he said he would not like to be an insurance 
 agent for a man who took an evicted farm, adding (what ^Ir. Ronan omitted 
 to quote) that that was a horrible and savage state of things, produced by 
 misrule. Next Mr. Ronan plied him with questions about moonlighting. " I 
 know nothing about it," said Mr. O'Connor. " The moonlighters did not 
 make me their father-confessor. You ought to know more about them than I 
 do, for you have lived more in Ireland." Twice or thrice the President inter- 
 fered to say he could not see the point of Mr. Ronan's questions. It was. 
 altogether a rambling, incoherent, futile piece of cross-examination. 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission, [June 21. 267 
 
 Father O'Connor, parish priest of Firies, county Kerry, now entered the 
 witness-box. In the Curtin evidence, it was said of Father O'Connor that he 
 neglected to visit the Curtin family on the occasion of Mr. Curtin's murder, 
 and to denounce the crime from the altar ; but that he expressed, from the 
 altar, sympathy with Mrs. Sullivan, the mother of one of Mr. Curtin's mur- 
 derers. Father O'Connor now explained that the parish services were 
 divided between himself and his curate, that on the Sunday after the murder 
 he was officiating in the remoter part of the parish, but that his curate, who 
 was officiating in the chapel which the Curtins attended, denounced the 
 crime from the altar. As for the sympathy with Mrs. Sullivan, he gave par- 
 ticular expression to it, he said, because the poor woman had lost her reason 
 in consequence of her son's fate. The cross-examination of this witness was 
 interrupted at four o'clock. 
 
 NINETY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 June 21. 
 
 The greater portion of the forenoon sitting was occupied by the fruitless 
 attempt of Mr. Atkinson, Q.C., to saddle Father O'Connor and the leaguers 
 of Firies with some, at least, oif the responsibility for the persecution of the 
 Curtin family. Counsel and witness wrangled for a while over the meaning of 
 the word "brazzle." A "brazzle" is the mark which farmers put on sheep 
 they buy at a sale. And Father O'Connor, president of the local branch of 
 the League, was reported to have said in one of his speeches that land- 
 grabbers ought to be brazzled so that the community might know them. The 
 literal-minded Mr= Atkinson appeared to be tr}'ing to get the worthy Father 
 to confess that he meant an actual visible mark. Now, the worthy Father's 
 temper is none of the meekest, and it was rapidly approaching explosive point 
 as he explained that he used "brazzle" as a figure for censure. But Mr. 
 Atkinson laboured away at the verb to brazzle, until at last the President 
 interfered, saying that the witness had made his meaning clear. From Father 
 O'Connor's story, the leaguers of the district must have stood in abject fear of 
 the moonlighters. And the "parishioners" must have been demoralized, for 
 he said that hundreds of them used to meet in the yard of the chapel, and hoot 
 the Curtin family on their way to worship (this, too, after the murder of the 
 father). Father O'Connor said that the League was afraid to pass a resolution 
 condemning the murderers, because the proposer's life would be in danger. 
 That, at any rate, showed hostility between the League and the party of out- 
 rage. Father O'Connor was the least satisfactory of the priest witnesses. It 
 was not pleasant to hear him say that he refrained from visiting the Curtins, 
 for these two reasons among others — that he thought they received him coldly ; 
 that he feared the Curtins might expect too much from him ! One of his 
 answers may have conveyed to his hearers a meaning different to what he 
 intended. When asked if the Curtin family were in a state of great affliction 
 after the father's murder, Father O'Connor repHed with an abrupt, "Why 
 not ? " Some people in court appeared surprised and shocked. But the 
 " why not " was merely a very common Irish equivalent for " it was natural that 
 they should." Father O'Connor appeared, however, to have openly condemned 
 the boycott when it took the form of what he called sacrilege — that is, boy- 
 cotting the Curtins in chapel, or breaking their pev\\ His reverence did not 
 seem to have any lively conception of such a thing as "sacrilege" against 
 human nature outside the chapel door. Breaking a pew appealed to his 
 
268 Tuesday] Diary of [Jt^ne 25. 
 
 superstitious terrors. Father O'Connor, like the crowds of witnesses for the 
 defence, who preceded him, denied the charge of League complicity in out- 
 rage. But his narrowness, and hardness, and a certain stamp of mechanical 
 sacerdotalism about the man, must have repelled most people who listened to 
 him. 
 
 Mr. Foley, one of the members for county Galway, was called when P'ather 
 O'Connor left the box. He was to be examined in reference to the Frank 
 Bryne cheque of one hundred pounds, but his examination was postponed 
 because certain documents required were not in court. 
 
 Father Lawler, who had already been examined, was recalled, but his 
 additional evidence contained nothing of any special importance. 
 
 Mr. Henry O'Connor, secretary of the Causeway branch of the League, 
 near Tralee, shov%^ed from the books of the branch that some outragemongers, 
 whom T/ie Times alleged to have been members of it, never had joined it. 
 He told a ghastly little story of a process-server who, finding the tenant dead, 
 placed the eviction notice upon the man's body. He described Informer 
 Buckley, Times witness, as the worst character in Kerry. At this point Mr. 
 Reid handed in a list of outrages in proof of Mr. T. P. O'Connor's assertion 
 about the prevalence of agrarian crime during a long series of years preceding 
 the rise of the Land League. 
 
 Dr. Kenny, M.P., next entered the witness-box, to answer questions 
 about the books of the Land League, of which he was a treasurer from 
 February to October, 1881. He remembered nothing about the Tim Horan 
 letter. But he signed the Tim Horan cheque, just as he would sign any other 
 cheque brought to him for his signature — he signed it as a matter of course. 
 As said in preceding evidence, the League office was in a state of chaos 
 when Dr. Kenny assumed temporary and nominal charge of it ; and he was 
 unacquainted with details. As for the books of the League, Dr. Kenny sur- 
 mised that Mr. Egan must necessarily have had some of them with him in 
 Paris, in order to enable him to transact League business. It will be remem- 
 bered that the informer Farragher stated that he had conveyed letters from 
 Egan, in the Dublin office, to INIuUett, at his public-house, in the summer of 
 1 88 1. Dr. Kenny said this was impossible because Egan was all the while in 
 Paris. According to Dr. Kenny, Farragher, the Land League office servant, 
 was a liar and perjurer. Replying to Mr. Davitt, Dr. Kenny said that Farragher 
 was dismissed from the League office on suspicion of stealing stamps. 
 
 NINETY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 June 25. 
 
 For nearly two hours the Attorney-General and Dr. Kenny, M.P., disputed 
 about ]Mr. Patrick Egan. Dr. Kenny said positively that Mr. Egan had not 
 visited Dublin from the month of February, i88i, when Egan left Dublin 
 for Paris, until long after the suppression of the Land League, which suppres- 
 sion was effected on the i8th or 19th of October, 1881. But the Attorney- 
 General had found abundant evidence of Mr. Egan's presence in Dublin, early 
 in October, 1881. What could Dr. Kenny mean by his stubborn denials ? Sir 
 Richard Webster laboured this point with the assiduity of one unveiling some 
 terrific plot. ]Mr. Egan's name was among the list of visitors to Kilmainham 
 early in October, i88i. But Dr. Kenny cared nothing fur that; the entry 
 might have been a hoax — patriotic Irishmen have often hoaxed the " peelers " 
 before and since. The Attorney-General quoted long reports of several meet- 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [June 25. 269 
 
 ings of the League Committee in Dublin early in October, iSSi, reports four 
 or five columns long, written by the Freeman v^nd Express reporters, and giving 
 the very words which Mr. Egan uttered at these meetings. But Dr. Kenny 
 was unshaken. He stoutly maintained that iNIr. Egan was not present at these 
 meetings. JNIr. Reid, in order to put an end to the wrangle, rose to say that 
 Dr. Kenny was under a misapprehension, and that he himself was instructed 
 to say that INIr. Egan was in Dublin early in October. "Won't beheve it," 
 quoth the doctor, sticking his hands into his pockets. ]Mr. Parnell himself, in 
 his evidence, had said that IMr. Egan paid a visit to Dublin early in October. 
 But Dr. Kenny could not help that either. Of course, the position was quite 
 clear. As the President and INIr. Reid observed, Dr. Kenny was somehow 
 labouring under a misapprehension ; and, as they did not observe (though they 
 may have thought it) Dr. Kenny had a good share of obstinacy in his nature. 
 
 Next Mr. Attorney pressed the doctor upon his alleged relations with Le 
 Caron, and this supplied the incident of the day. Le Caron, according to his 
 own story, was entertained by Dr. and Mrs. Kenny in Dublin ; they took him 
 about and showed him the lions of the city ; and he drove on a "jaunting car" 
 with Dr. Kenny to Kilmainham. Dr. Kenny had no recollection of the jaunt- 
 ing car ; " I don't believe I showed him the sights of Dublin.'" He had no 
 recollection of taking a message from Boyton, who was in Kilmainham, to Le 
 Caron, who was to take it with him to Boyton's friends in America. " I may 
 have seenLe Caron," said Dr. Kenny, " but I have no recollection." "Is Le 
 Caron here ? " Sir Richard Webster inquired. A movement among the crowd 
 in the doorway, and in a moment Major Le Caron, alias Dr. Beach, ex-spy, 
 ex-deputy adjutant-general of the armies of the United Brethren stood before 
 the Dublin doctor. It was interesting to observe the pair. The adjutant- 
 general, a short man, looked up smilingly. The doctor, all the taller in his 
 box, looked down curiously, as if he were examining some " specimen " in a 
 museum. The doctor gazed, and gazed, and paused. The doctor threw down 
 his pen. He put his hands into his pockets. He wrinkled his forehead. Said 
 he, " I would never let a man with a face like that enter my house." The 
 adjutant-general reddened — and vanished. "What's wrong with the face?" 
 growled ^Ir. Attorney, with his palms on his hips. "It speaks for itself," 
 answered the doctor. "As what ? " "As that of a man I would not choose 
 for a friend." "As what?" "The face," exclaimed the doctor, rather 
 loudly, " is as false as a man ever wore." The President frowned. 
 
 Sir Richard and Dr. Kenny next wrangled about some postage stamps. 
 Last Friday Dr. Kenny said that Informer Farragher had been dismissed 
 in September or October, i88i, on suspicion of stealing the office stamps. 
 Sir Richard Webster now produced a document showing that Farragher 
 had received on the 15th of October, three days before the suppression 
 of the Central League office where Farragher was employed, so much wages 
 for overtime. Sir Richard now wanted to know if the dismissal took place 
 in the brief period between the 15th and i8th or 19th. But after so many 
 years Dr. Kenny had forgotten the precise details of the Farragher episode. 
 And now came ^Slr. Attorney's crushing question — " In ]March, 1888, Dr. 
 Kenny, did you not give Farragher a testimonial?" Yes, a testimonial in 
 which he called Farragher a "conscientious," and "hard-working" man. 
 This admission caused much amusement in court, but Dr. Kenny explained 
 that after so many years he forgot all about the stamp episode, and, added the 
 doctor, "I was not positive as to his identity." The rest of Dr. Kenny's 
 cross-examination was a long, laborious, and fruitless effort to get information 
 about the missing books of the Land League. Dr. Kenny thought the most 
 valuable of the books— the grant book, as it was called, being a record of 
 grants of money made by the central office — might possibly be in the possession 
 of Mr. Moloney. He laughed at the statement, calling it absurd, that "seven- 
 
270 Wednesday] Diary of [June 26. 
 
 teen hundredweight of Land League books " were removed from the Dublin 
 office. He could give no details as to the alleged conveyance of the books to 
 Liverpool, and to Palace Chambers, Westminster. Nor did he know anything 
 whatever about the time or place of !Mr. Egan's disappearance from Ireland. 
 Nor had he had any communication with the practical joker Molloy before 
 Molloy's interview with The Times ZigQnis in Dublin. " Molloy told me," 
 said the doctor, " that The Times agents promised him money if he would 
 say anything." And, added Dr. Kenny, frankly — glancing at The Times 
 people who were in court — "I believe it ; for I have been told that Mrs. 
 Mullet was promised money, and her husband his release, if they would give 
 evidence for The Times.'''' 
 
 To Dr. Kenny followed Mr. Sexton, M.P., Lord Mayor of Dublin. ]Mr. 
 Sexton had no information to give the Attorney-General about the Land 
 League accounts and books. " I have delivered hundreds of speeches," said 
 Mr. Sexton, replying to Mr. Reid, ' ' and in them I incessantly denounced 
 outrage." Mr. Reid asked him about Le Caron's romantic story of Brennan's 
 escape through the narrow side street in the Strand wuth ^Mr. Sexton's own help. 
 '•' From beginning to end," said ^Ir. Sexton, in his quiet way, "the story is 
 an absolute fabrication." 
 
 NINETY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 June 26. 
 
 For about two hours the Attorney-General laboured hard to extort some 
 admission from Mr. Sexton which would convict him of active sympathy with 
 Fenians, Clan-na-Gael folk, and physical force people generally. He 
 questioned him about his associates in Dublin, and the people whom he met 
 in America; and about the "Spread the Light" operations of The Irish 
 World. As regards the Fenians, Mr. Sexton frankly stated that he 
 sympathized with some of them personally, though he did not approve 
 of their method of righting the wrongs of Ireland. He felt for some of them 
 the respect which he would feel for any men who underwent self-sacrifice for a 
 cause which they honestly believed to be right. The plainness, promptitude, 
 and straightforwardness of Mr. Sexton's answers impressed the Attorney- 
 General, who treated him all along with a courtesy and considerateness which, 
 if the truth must be told. Sir Richard has not always extended to the principal 
 witnesses for the defence. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster appeared to think it a suspicious circumstance that Mr. 
 Sexton contributed to a fund (now long forgotten) which was raised for Head- 
 Centre Stephens. Mr. Sexton explained that he subscribed out of compassion 
 for the Stephens' family, who were in a state of destitution "'in a foreign 
 capital " (Brussels). Then the Attorney-General abruptly asked ]Mr. Sexton 
 whether, in 1878 or 1879, he had refused to join the Fenians because of his 
 disapproval of the Fenian oath. Mr. Sexton replied that he refused to become 
 a Fenian because he could not bring himself to promise to obey the secret 
 orders of men of whom he knew nothing. 
 
 " ^^^lo asked you to join, Mr. Sexton ? " "I refuse to say who," was the 
 reply ; and then followed a little " scene " which, at one moment, looked as if 
 it might become serious. Sir Richard Webster pressed — politely — for his 
 answer. Mr. Sexton as politely stuck to his refusal. The President mildly 
 ruled that the Attorney-General was entitled to put his question. Whereupon 
 jSIr. Sexton rapidly uttered the following decisive little speech — " Rather than 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [June 26. 271 
 
 <lisclose the name of any man who by my disclosure would be brought into a 
 position subjecting himself to the penalties of the law, I would incur any of 
 the penalties the Court has the power to inflict on me." This certainly 
 sounded somewhat precipitate. So that Sir James Hannen observed — "You 
 need not make any such remarks, Mr. Sexton ; I must say that I see no 
 plausible ground for your taking any such objection. If there were I should 
 take such steps as I thought necessary to prevent what you anticipate. There- 
 fore, I see no ground why the question should not be answered." 
 
 Thus ehcouraged, Sir Richard Webster tried INIr. Sexton once more — " I 
 must ask you to give me the name of the person." Mr. Sexton replied that it 
 was some one whose name had not even been mentioned in connection with 
 the trial, and, said he, " I decline to answer." Upon this Mr. Lockwood rose 
 to say that Mr. Sexton was there to meet accusations against himself. "A 
 witness is here," the President interposed, sharply, "not to give what informa- 
 tion he thinks fit, but to give evidence," and he intimated that the course 
 which Mr. Sexton proposed to follow "must tend to diminish the value of the 
 case presented." 
 
 Once more the Attorney-General put his question to Mr. Sexton, who 
 replied that the disclosure of the name would not help the proceedings in the 
 slightest degree ; " if," said he, " I disclosed the name I should despise myself 
 all my life afterwards." " To treat our ruling thus," said the President, " is 
 not to treat the Court with respect." " Having myself refused to join the 
 Brotherhood," ^Ir. Sexton replied, "and knowing nothing of their secrets, I 
 respectfully submit, especially after what I have said as to the immateriality of 
 the disclosure, that I should not be asked to say." " You are not the judge," 
 returned the President. One thing was clear — that Mr. Sexton had made up 
 his mind to withhold the name. But the incident came to a sudden end by 
 Sir Richard Webster's intimation that " though reserving " his right, he 
 " would not press the question further now." 
 
 Sir Richard Webster turned to another subject, boycotting, which Mr. 
 Sexton readily enough admitted to be "a necessary evil." Pie said that not 
 only would he himself disapprove of a boycott extending to "the necessaries 
 of life," but that he had never known an extreme case of that description. 
 Boycotting within certain limits he considered to be " the lawful weapon of 
 the people." Mr. Sexton was equally candid in declaring that he certainly 
 would have disapproved of the distribution of the " Spread the Light " numbers 
 of The Irish JVorM from and at the expense of the Dublin League ; but that 
 he did not believe T/ie Irish World was circulated in any such way — The Irish 
 World had a distribution fund of its own. Mr. Sexton was questioned at 
 considerable length respecting his American tour. But the only questions of 
 any general interest were those of which Le Caron, alias Dr. Beach, was the 
 subject. Pie might have met Le Caron in America, but he had no recollection. 
 " But, in one of your American speeches, did you not say," the Attorney- 
 General asked, " that you had met in Boston a Frenchman who was following 
 in the track of liberty and working for Ireland's freedom ? " Who could that 
 " Frenchman " have been unless it was Le Caron (a French name), Le Caron, 
 alias Beach, of Colchester, Deputy Adjutant- General of the armies of the U.B. ? 
 It might, said Mr. Sexton, have been a " French Canadian ; " it might even 
 have been Beach himself; but if it was, Mr. Sexton had forgotten all about him. 
 Would 3.1r. Sexton like to look upon Le Caron (who was sitting in a quiet 
 corner in court) ? No ; Mr. Sexton looked upon Le Caron's face yesterday, 
 and had no desire to see it again. Re-examined by Mr. Lockwood, Mr. 
 Sexton said that the Foresters' was the only " secret society " of which he had 
 ever been a member. " A convivial society," Mr. Lockwood threw in, as Islx. 
 Sexton left the box. 
 
 Next came Mr. T. Harrington, M.P. for one of the divisions of Dublin, ex- 
 
272 Thursday] Diary of [June 27. 
 
 proprietor and editor of The Kerry Sentinel^ and secretary of the National 
 League since its foundation. Mr. Harrington's evidence began with a 
 brief description of the Irish Arcadia of The Times landlord witnesses, 
 a description based upon what he had seen when ten years ago he travelled as 
 a newspaper correspondent through the starving western and south-western 
 regions. In this happy Arcadia the peasants lived on turnips — when they 
 could get them. " I have delivered hundreds of speeches, "said ^^Ir. Harring- 
 ton, " and among them all you cannot produce a single one which, if fully 
 reported, will not be found to contain condemnation of outrage." 
 
 Not the least interesting part of his story was his answer about the informer 
 O'Connor, who, it will be remembered, swore that Mr. Harrington had once 
 given him money for promising to intimidate voters at a local election. " The 
 informer's statement," said Mr. Harrington, "is, as far as I am concerned, an 
 absolute fabrication from beginning to end. I never saw the man until he 
 appeared here." 
 
 As for the assertion of the prosecution that League funds were used for 
 criminal purposes, Mr. Harrington repudiated it with indignation and scorn. 
 He declared that he had not only reprimanded local branches which were over- 
 stepping the line of legality, but that he had also suppressed several, and letters 
 were put in by ]^Ir. Reid in proof of this statement of ]Mr. Harrington's. INIr, 
 Murphy's cross-examination of Mr. Harrington was tedious. But once or 
 twice it grew lively. Mr. Murphy was asking Mr. Harrington why he had 
 opposed a certain claim of compensation for destruction of a certain Kerry 
 farmer's property. The reason was that there were doubts as to the alleged 
 origin of the damage ; and, added Mr. Harrington, " if you were a ratepayer 
 in the place, you would not like to be saddled with a heavier levy than was 
 necessary." Mr. Harrington spoke angrily. "You must restrain yourself, 
 Mr. Harrington," said the President, " and not indulge in personal observa- 
 tions." Mr. Justice Smith also interfered, and both the President and Mr. 
 Justice Smith reminded him of the distinction between counsel and witness. 
 A little later Mr. Harrington declared to Mr. Murphy that he would not be 
 "shut up." 
 
 NINETY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 June 27. 
 
 Mr. Reid produced a number of witnesses from county INIayo, which he 
 described as the cradle of the Land League. He produced them in order that 
 they might prove the existence of landlord oppression during the years before ' 
 the League, and, inferentially, the necessity for combination on the part of the 
 tenants. 
 
 The first of these Mayo witnesses was Father Hewson, parish priest of 
 Belmullet. To illustrate the condition of his parish, he gave details of the 
 "duty labour" exacted by landlord Bingham, one of The Times witnesses. 
 " Duty labour " was merely another name for what is known as corvee labour ; 
 and landlord Bingham exacted twelve days of it yearly from each of his 
 tenants, or its equivalent in cash — half-a-crown a day. 
 
 INIr. Atkinson, in his cross-examination, called this labour a form of rent, 
 which the President admitted it to be, qualifying it, however, as objectionable. 
 But to return to the examination-in-chief, which was conducted by ]Mr. Reid, 
 Father Hewson said that the corvee labour was exacted during the periods of 
 the spring and autumn when the tenants' attention to their work on their own 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [June 27. 273 
 
 holdings was most needed. The tenants, said Father Hewson, were very poor, 
 yet they were the sole creators of improvements on their farms. In the month 
 in which the Land League was suppressed (October, i88i) landlord Bingham 
 was fired at. Continuing his description of Mayo landlords, Father Hewson 
 mentioned landlord Carter, who was shot at within a fortnight after he had 
 evicted some families. Was landgrabbing unpopular before the League? 
 Father Hewson said that it was, adding that his parishioners, who were an 
 Erse-speaking people, did not know it by that name, but in their own language 
 as saintough — covetousness, "one of the seven deadly sins," observed the 
 reverend Father. — [The Celtic peasant of Ireland and the Celtic " crofter" of 
 vScotland have the same name for the same " deadly sin ; " but there is this 
 difference, that landgrabbing has never been known among the Scotch Celts, 
 nor its accompaniments, moonlighting, murder, maiming, or agrarian outrage 
 of any kind]. 
 
 Cross-examined by Mr. Atkinson, Father Hewson said he did not believe 
 that Bingham was fired at. He shared the popular impression in BelmuUet 
 that the supposed shooting was the accidental work of Bingham's own pistol. 
 The good Father raised a laugh by saying that "duty labour" meant that " a 
 man must leave his own tillage work, carry his breakfast in his stomach, get 
 his dinner — a bad one — from the landlord, and go home supperless." "I 
 shouldn't object to his carrying his breakfast in his stomach," remarked Mr. 
 Atkinson. "The best place for it, I should think," said the_ President. No 
 doubt. But when an Erse-speaking Irishman says he "carries his breakfast 
 in his stomach," he does not necessarily mean that he has any breakfast to 
 digest. He may mean, and often does, that his stomach is breakfasting upon 
 itself. 
 
 Mr. Atkinson, in his cross-examinations, attaches great importance to certain 
 negative evidence which he often succeeds in ehciting. His stock question is, 
 In the ten, fifteen, or twenty years (as the case may be), preceding the 
 foundation of the Land League, can you name a single instance in which a 
 man was outraged for taking a farm from which another man had been evicted ? 
 Father Hewson could recollect no individual case in his parish in the twentv 
 years before the rise of the Land League. What Father Hewson claimed to 
 have estabhshed was that the provocation to outrage, the landlord greed and 
 oppression, existed ; and that the Land League taught the people to combine 
 in self-defence. 
 
 The general testimony as to the wretched condition of Mayo before the 
 foundation of the League, and as to extortions by the landlords, were con- 
 firmed by the next witness, also a priest, Father Kelly of Moygarna. 
 Speaking of a [Nliss Knox's estate, Father Kelly said that her tenants would 
 have been unable to live but for the Mansion House Relief Fund. 
 
 Father Kelly was severely cross-examined by Sir Richard Webster. Father 
 Kelly confessed he once refused to interfere on behalf of a man named Mike 
 Brown, whom his neighbours were annoying in various ways. That a minister 
 of religion should refuse to interfere in the cause of peace and goodwill among 
 men shocked the Christian Mr. Attorney exceedingly. However, the hardened 
 "P. P." had something to say for himself. Mike Brown, said Father Kelly, 
 was guilty of sin in forcing up rents and driving the people from the country. 
 Saintough., covetousness, "one of the seven deadly sins," over again! The 
 worthy Father appeared to think it would serve Miky Browm right if he 
 received hotter punishment than being "jeered at " by small boys. 
 
 The Attorney-General next sought to prove that Father Kelly had tried 
 to intimidate people from giving evidence for The Times, and that Father 
 Kelly had gone on the war-path, organizing the defence of the tenaiits' 
 forts, and defeating the baihfts and poHce. Father Kelly stoutly denied 
 the intimidation charge ; but, after a long struggle, he made several important 
 
 19 
 
274 Fyiday] Diary of [Jii^ne 28. 
 
 admissions — or confessions — under the second head. Hard as his work was, 
 the Attorney-General got through it in good humour. He was much more 
 polite and man-and-brotherly to his reverence than he was to Mr. Parnell. Bit 
 by bit Father Kelly admitted that on the morning of the attempted evictions, 
 he left four or five rnen drawn up in front of Dunleavy's house, and four or five 
 more at MacAndrew's, and that when the enemy (to wit, the bailifls and the 
 police) came up, they thought it discreet to give both forts the go-by. "Did you," 
 said Sir Richard, "hear anybody call out ' Get the hot water ready?' " " No." 
 Did you hear anybody say, "Don't do it?" "Xo." And then Sir Richard 
 paused. He leant forward over the bench. He lowered his voice — "Did you 
 yourself, Father Kelly, call out, ' Get the hot water ready? ' " Father Kelly's 
 eyes became round as Giotto's " O," as he answered, " I may have." There 
 was a burst of laughter in court, and Mr, Attorney drew himself up wuth a 
 triumphant gesture. And Mr. Justice Day must have been shocked by 
 the reply. He was leaning forward, listening with all his might. At the 
 Father's answer he started back, he thrust his hands into his pockets, he frowned, 
 he shook his head, he muttered — but his words w^ere inaudible. At a later 
 stage in the proceedings Father Kelly maintained that if he did call out, "Get 
 the hot water ready," he must have meant it jocularly. Sir Richard was happy 
 for once. 
 
 Mr. Waldron, of Ballyhaunis, was the next witness. Secretary to the local 
 branch of the Land League, he said that the two murders, about which he was 
 being examined, were perpetrated after the suppression of the branch ; and that 
 the League was always opposed to outrage of all sorts. In a social sense, the 
 only notable thing in Mr. Waldron's evidence was his statement that neither he, 
 nor any one else, took any steps to inquire into the cause of the aiiurder of two 
 men who, according to his own account, were popular in the neighbourhood, 
 and whose funerals were largely attended — Mr. Waldron himself attending 
 both. 
 
 Then came Charles Burke, "small farmer," of Iviltimagh. He was called 
 to contradict the story given by The Times watness, the boy Walsh, who, it 
 will be remembered, swindled the Kiltimagh branch of which he was joint 
 secretary, and some insurance company for which he was agent. ^Ir. Burke 
 emphatically denied Walsh's story that he (Burke) and members of the League 
 were associated with him in planning outrages. 
 
 The Rev. Father McHale, from near CrossmoHna, testified to extortionate 
 renting before 1879. Up to 1879, said he, "I had no sympathy for popular 
 movements, but what I saw of the people's misery convinced me that a tenants' 
 combination was necessary." 
 
 NINETY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 June 28. 
 
 Mr. Reid passed nine of his witnesses through the \^^tness-box. Five of 
 them were members charged. They were Dr. Commins, member for South 
 Roscommon ; Mr. J. F. X. O'Brien ; Mr. Donald Sullivan, one of the mem- 
 bers for Meath ; Mr. Clancy, one of the DubHn members ; Mr. Power, one 
 of the members for Waterford. But before the members were called, Mr. 
 Thomas Harrington, of The Freeman, was examined. Mr. Harrington, who 
 had attended large numbers of the Land League meetings, produced extracts 
 from reports of them, showing how speakers habitually declared that only the 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [June 28. 275 
 
 enemies of the National cause would profit by outrage, and that what the Irish 
 peasantry wanted was fair rent, or purchase on fair terms. 
 
 Sir Henry James cross-examined Mr. Harrington with special reference to 
 a banquet speech of Mr. Biggar's, in which (as was reported) Mr. Biggar 
 intimated that if the rulers of Ireland did not mend their ways, Ireland might 
 perhaps bring forth avengers of the Russian Hartmann type. Mr. Harrington 
 said he did not hear Mr. Biggar make use of any such expression, that Mr. 
 Biggar was indistinctly heard, and that he believed the reporters were mis- 
 informed by somebody who professed to have heard what Mr. Biggar really 
 did say. 
 
 After Mr. Harrington came Dr. Commins, M.P. Dr. Commins quietly 
 remarked that he believed he was charged with something or other, but did 
 not know what. As nobody seemed to know why he was charged. Dr. 
 Commins was speedily done with. Dr. Commins it was who gave Frank 
 Byrne his first lift in the world. He regarded Byrne as an " exemplary young 
 man," and he was " astounded " when he heard it said that Byrne in America 
 confessed to having been implicated in the Phoenix Park murders. Said Dr. 
 Commins, " I have been a member of the executive committees of the 
 Land and National Leagues, and I ought to know their secrets if they 
 had any." 
 
 " In 1867 were you not sentenced to be hanged, drawn, and quartered ? " Mr. 
 Reid asked, in the gentlest of voices. The lady spectators, in particular, fixed 
 their eyes curiously upon the gentleman to whom this unusual question was 
 addressed. It was Mr. J- F. Xavier O'Brien, M.P. "Just so," replied Mr. 
 O'Brien. "For high treason, I believe?" "Yes." Mr. O'Brien upon 
 whom this terrific — and ludicrous — sentence was passed twenty-two years ago, 
 is under middle height, neat in person, cool, mild, and precise in manner. He 
 wears a long, thick, whitey-gray beard, and a nicely-trimmed whitey-gray wig, 
 primly parted in the middle. His evidence was over in a couple of minutes, 
 and the only notable incident in his cross-examination by Sir Henry James 
 was his point-blank refusal to divulge anything upon which his Fenian oath 
 bound him to secrecy. Sir Heniy did not press him. Sir Henry appeared to 
 be rather pleased than otherwise to release Mr. O'Brien. There was nothing 
 to ask him about. As Mr. Xavier O'Brien himself remarked, in his matter- 
 of-fact, dispassionate way, " I am one of the charged, to my surprise." 
 
 Mr. Sullivan, of Meath, is the brother of the lyrical " T. D." — to whom he 
 bears some traces of resemblance, in outward manner. His examination and 
 cross-examination, purely formal, sleepy ceremonies, lasted only a minute or 
 two. 
 
 After Mr. Sullivan came Mr. Clancy, M.P., one of the best business 
 men among the Irish party. Sir Henry James questioned Mr. Clancy as to 
 whether he knew this, that, or the other person, supposed to be a member of 
 the physical force party. Mr. Clancy's repeated "No" — "No" — '"No" — 
 *' No " at first bored people. Then it amused them, as it began to be whispered 
 about that Sir Henry was confounding the gentleman in the box with another 
 Clancy, a sub-sherift", or something of the sort, in DubHn ! Somebody was at 
 sea. But it did not matter a straw. Mr. Clancy, with a little yawn, walked 
 out of his box, and Sir Henry promptly sat down, with the air of a man tired 
 of his performance. 
 
 The seventh witness, Patrick Scanlon, a Kerr}' man, testified, like the second 
 witness, Martin Fitzpatrick, of Robeen, Mayo, to popular discontent caused 
 by landlord oppression in the years before the Land League. 
 
 Then Mr. Power, landlord though he was, declared that he thought the 
 No- Rent Manifesto quite justifiable. 
 
 And lastly, Mr. Vincent Scully, a Tipperary landlord, and magistrate and 
 deputy-lieutenant of the county, said he resigned his position as a magistrate 
 
276 Tuesday] Diary of [J^^ly 2. 
 
 for two reasons — because there were so many Coercion Acts ; and because 
 he " would not sit "' as a poHtical dispenser of justice. 
 
 NIXETY-XINTH DAY. 
 
 July 2. 
 
 In anticipation of Mr. Davitt's appearance the court was crowded. Mr. 
 Davitt is one of those who "appear in person." But as soon as the judges 
 took their seats Sir Charles Russell intimated that he had been asked by Mr. 
 Davitt to examine him. This Sir Charles Russell proceeded to do, and the 
 result was a review, lasting till three o'clock, of Mr. Davitt's career. People 
 in court seemed surprised to hear from Mr. Davitt that he was only " turned 
 forty-one." The extraordinary contrasts in Mr. Davitt's life were brought out, 
 or suggested, in the rapid, light manner characteristic of Sir Charles Russell's 
 cross-examinations. Evicting bailiffs, the old home set on fire, workhouse 
 officials refusing admittance to the Davitt family because the mother would not 
 be separated -from her child — these were 'Mr. Davitt's earhest memories of his 
 forty-one years ; the contrast, visible in the witness-box, was the father of the 
 Land League, one of the three chief actors in the ten years of Irish history — 
 the Irish "revolution," as Sir Charles Russell called it — upon which their 
 lordships were sitting in judgment. Though there was a tone of indifference 
 in his resonant manly voice, the colour fled from his face as he recalled that 
 little scene at the workhouse. 
 
 " We were very poor," Mr. Davitt said, as he described how, shortly after 
 their eviction from their home in Mayo, the Davitt family came to live in 
 Lancashire. Haslingden, the name of the place was, and there ^lichael 
 Davitt, at the age of nine, was put to work in a mill. "One day I was kicked 
 across the floor and told to do work which a lad of eighteen would ordinarily 
 do; and when I was at that work I lost my arm." His parents were 
 " Nationalists ; " no wonder, perhaps. And they even encouraged him to 
 enter the Fenian Brotherhood, w^hich also was natural. And he entered it, at^ 
 the age of seventeen. Then came the Chester Castle raid, and young Davitt's 
 voluntary share in it ; his services to the Brotherhood in forwarding arms to 
 Ireland; and, finally, his sentence at the Old Bailey, in July, 1S70, to fifteen 
 years' penal servitude on a charge of treason felony. On the 19th of December, 
 1877, he was released on ticket-of-leave. " Immediately on my release," said 
 Mr. Davitt, " I rejoined the Fenian Brotherhood ; " and then he explained his 
 object in doing so — to win over as many of the Brotherhood as he could to an 
 open and constitutional agitation, " because I had made up my mind that 
 secret conspiracies were of no use." In 1878 he lectured in America "in 
 favour of an open movement ; " and at a Boston meeting held in December of 
 that year he set forth his views on a new kind of agrarian agitation in Ireland. 
 " Mr. Parnell," said INIr. Davitt, " had nothing to do with my American tour ; 
 I went to see my poor old mother." 
 
 Returning to Ireland in 1879, ^^^' Davitt began to put his ideas on open 
 constitutional agitation into practice. And he chose his native Mayo, where 
 his father and mother and himself were burnt out of their home twenty-six 
 years before. The first of the meetings w^hich led to the foundation of the 
 Land League was held at Irishtown on the 20th of April, 1879. The small 
 farmers of Western Ireland contributed towards the expenses of these meetings. 
 Mr. Davitt himself gave the proceeds of his lecturing tours through Great 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [jfttly 2. 277 
 
 Britain and the United States. Mr. Davitt went to his work with a will ; he 
 was impelled by what he saw in the West of the abject " misery and poverty " 
 of the tenants and their " slavishness " to the landlords. All this time, Mr. 
 Parnell, the arch-revolutionist of T//e Times, was holding aloof from the Land 
 League movement. " I think Mr. Parnell is too conservative altogether on 
 the agrarian question," said Mr. Davitt, during a brief pause in his examination 
 At last, in August, 1879, the Land League of Mayo was established at the 
 Castlebar Convention ; and finally the National organization, the Land League 
 of Ireland, was founded in Dublin on the 22nd of October. It was at this second 
 period that -Mr. Parnell fell in with the movement. It required much persua- 
 sion to bring him round. And now he was appointed president of the new 
 organization. 
 
 At this stage of the examination ]Mr. Asquith read out the rules and 
 principles of the new League. Formulated generally at the Castlebar Con- 
 vention, they were sufficiently conservative for Mr. Parnell's acceptance, their 
 governing idea being that, as the landlord system was the curse of Ireland and 
 the cause of her demoralization, that system should be superseded by peasant 
 proprietorship on fair terms to the landlords. Then ■Sir. Davitt proceeding on 
 his second journey across the Atlantic, entered upon his task of organizing 
 the League's American branch, the rules and principles of which, read out by 
 Mr. Asquith, corresponded to those of the Irish organization. He attended 
 meetings of the Clan-na-Gael, a society which, said Mr. Davitt, was "no more 
 a murder club than the Carlton is a murder club." Mr. Davitt was Major Le 
 Caron's guest at Braidwood. And he spoke at a meeting which, as he thought, 
 was organized by Le Caron. At these meetings Mr. Davitt condemned 
 violence. " Shoot the landlords," exclaimed some one at one of these demon- 
 strations. "No," was Mr. Davitt's rejoinder, "shoot the system," this 
 *' robber system," as he described it in the same passage of his speech. •' I 
 have conscientiously believed all my life," said Mr. Davitt, replying to Sir 
 Charles Russell, "that landlordism is the source of crime in Ireland." 
 
 Mr. Davitt spoke in the highest terms of Mr. Alexander Sullivan and Mr. 
 Patrick Ford, saying of the latter that he was misunderstood in England, and 
 of the former that he was a man "incapable of doing anything dishonourable." 
 He admitted that Ford had once upon a time gone over to the dynamite party ; 
 but, he added, Mr. Ford has since joined the constitutional side. Here 2vlr. 
 Davitt made a notable declaration, "Do not think," he said, "that I am 
 opposed on principle to the use of physical force." And he maintained that, 
 tmder certain circumstances, the use of physical force would be justifiable — " if 
 Ireland had the chance, for God knows she has had sufficient cause." But was 
 there an alternative to this physical force ? There was ; and Mr. Davitt, in his 
 description of the Chicago Convention of iS86, showed what it was. The mere 
 mention of the date suggested it. At that great Convention there were twelve 
 hundred delegates, many of them formerly strong advocates for the separation 
 of Ireland from Great Britain. But what ]^Ir. Davitt, to his surprise, saw at 
 that Convention was the universal acceptance of the Home Rule alternative to 
 separation. The Chicago Convention voted confidence in Mr. Gladstone and 
 thanks to the democracy of England. " I have not the slightest doubt," said 
 Mr. Davitt, that the Chicago resolutions " represented the feelings of the Irish 
 race in America." 
 
 Before making this interesting statement ]\Ir. Davitt spoke of the effect 
 which the Phcenix Park murders produced on Mr. Parnell. " I never saw him 
 in such a state of prostration. He was utterly broken down. When he told 
 me he was thinking of resigning, I said to him that the reasons were stronger 
 than ever why he should remain at the head of the Irish people." As an 
 instance of ls\x. Parnell's Conservatism — besides that already given — Mr. 
 Davitt mentioned the fact that after the Phoenix Park murders Mr. Par- 
 
27S Tuesday] Diary of [July 2. 
 
 nell was opposed to the establishment of a new political organization in 
 Ireland. 
 
 Cross-examined by the Attorney-General, Mr. Davitt said that he became a 
 " Centre '' soon after he joined the Fenian body ; and soon after that again 
 organizing secretary for England and Scotland, with about one hundred 
 " circles " under his supervision. Sir Richard Webster suddenly asked him if 
 *' rotten sheep " was a Fenian expression. It would mean traitor or a useless 
 fellow, said Mr. Davitt, adding that he himself had used it in a letter. Was 
 that letter addressed to Forrester, Sir Richard Webster asked. Mr. Davitt 
 refused to answer. This was the letter, already referred to in Sir Charles 
 Russell's examination-in-chief, partly upon the strength of which Mr. Davitt 
 was sentenced at the Old Bailey. At that trial it was interpreted as an incite- 
 ment to murder. In his examination-in-chief, Mr. Davitt stated that the letter 
 was intended to prevent murder. And now Mr. Davitt claimed to be allowed 
 to make a further explanation to the Court. He said that the letter in ques- 
 tion was his reply to one written to him by a fellow-Fenian, a hot-headed 
 young man of eighteen, who had made up his mind to take the life of a 
 member of the Brotherhood, whom he believed to be a traitor. " 'My letter," 
 said Mr. Davitt, frankly, ' ' was criminally foolish. " He was only twenty years 
 old when he wrote it. But, as he repeated, its somewhat elaborate instructions 
 to the would-be assassin were a device for gaining time. Mr. Davitt advised the 
 young man to communicate with "Jem" and " Fitz,"' cipher names of two 
 members of the Fenian Supreme Council ; but in the meantime he took the pre- 
 caution to warn "Jem," and "Fitz," of his correspondent's intentions. Xo murder 
 was committed ; and Mr. Davitt believed that he had been instrumental in 
 preventing a crime. Yet, at the Old Bailey, Mr. Davitt's letter was regarded 
 as a proof of the writer's complicity in a plot to murder. Mr. Davitt refused 
 to tell the Attorney-General who "Jem" and "Fitz" were. The President 
 then asked Mr. Davitt if he had given that explanation at the Old Bailey trial. 
 Mr. Davitt had not ; if I had, said Mr. Davitt, " I would have betrayed the 
 young man who trusted in me." " He is in America. I appeal to him from 
 this witness-box to come forward and give me the necessary permission." " I 
 have borne this stigma for twenty years, and imprisonment as well. I hope 
 the man for whom I have borne this will now do me justice and tell the truth." 
 
 Here is the text of Mr. Davitt's letter to the would-be assassin : — 
 
 My dear Friend, — I have just returned from Dundee, which place I have left all right. 
 Your letter of Monday I have read. I have no doubt but that your account Is correct. In 
 reference to the other affair, I hope 3-ou won't take any part in it whatever — I mean in the 
 carrying of it out. If it is decided upon, and you receive Jem's and through him Fitz's con- 
 sent, let it be done by all means ; but one thing you must remember, and that is that you are 
 of too much value to our family to be spared, even at the risk of allowing a "rotten sheep " 
 to exist among the flock. You must know that if anything happened to you the toil and trouble 
 of the' last six months will have been almost in vain. Whoever is employed don't let him use 
 the " pen '' we are and have been selling. Get another for the purpose— a common one. I 
 
 hope and trust when I return to ^Nlan I maj- not hear that every man, woman, and child 
 
 know all about it ere it occur. 
 
 Pen meant revolver ; flock meant the Fenian party ; and the rotten sheep- 
 were the traitors. 
 
 While the cross-examination went on, Mrs. Alexander Sullivan, of Chicago, 
 sat in the ladies' gallery. She had the satisfaction of hearing Mr. Davitfs 
 praise of her husband — all the more welcome, no doubt, because of the world- 
 wide speculation on the Cronin murder. Egan, Mr. Davitt held in high 
 esteem. He first made Mx. Egan's friendship in 1877 5 " ^i^d I ^"^ proud 
 to say that that intimacy continues to the present hour. He was one of 
 the most respected merchants in Dublin ; a man of the highest character and 
 honour, who, though an advanced Nationalist, had numerous friends among the 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [July 3. 279 
 
 classes who diftered entirely from him. " No amount of personal regard ever 
 prevents 'M\:. Davitt from saying what he believes to be truth about a 
 friend. Thus he considers ]Mr. Parnell a Tory in agrarian policy, and he 
 says it. And in his references to Mr. Parnell, he sometimes gives the public 
 an interesting glimpse of the inner history of the Irish movement. For example, 
 Mr. Davitt is a land nationalizer. To substitute for a handful of big landlords 
 half a million small ones, will never, he believes, settle the Irish question. 
 Mr. Parnell, on the other hand, holds out, as he always has done, for a peasant 
 proprietary. 
 
 ONE HUNDREDTH DAY. 
 
 July 3. 
 
 Sir Richard Webster resumed the subject. He wanted to know if Forrester 
 was a Fenian, and Mr. Davitt refused to tell him. He dwelt for some time 
 on the curious defence put up by Mr. Davitt's counsel at the trial. Sir Richard 
 Webster wished to show that there was an incompatibility between the spirit 
 m which Mr. Davitt refrained from betraying even the would-be assassin who 
 had wronged him, and the spirit of his counsel's defence of him at the Old 
 Bailey. Mr. Davitt's counsel said that Mr. Davitt's exportation of arms had 
 no connection whatever with the Fenian conspiracy, but was intended to enable 
 the landlords to arm themselves against outragemongers ! There certainly 
 was an immense difference between the spirit of that plea and the chivalrous 
 spirit which prompted Mr. Davitt to undergo penal servitude rather than 
 expose a fellow-Fenian. But Mr. Davitt was ready with his explanation. ''I 
 knew nothing," said Mr. Davitt, "of the line my- counsel would take in 
 defence until his speech was delivered. I am not the man to resort to subter- 
 fuge, even to save myself from penal servitude." _ ' 
 
 Then the Attorney-General turned his attention to a question which, in one 
 form or another, was repeated a score of times in the course of the day's cross- 
 examination — the question of Mr. Davitt's opinion, after the year 1879, on the 
 alternative of physical force. In his evidence-in-chief Mr. Davitt had said that 
 immediately on his first release from prison he re-entered the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood, with the express purpose of winning over its members to consti- 
 tutionalism. This statement, and ^Nlr. Davitt's repeated assertion that even 
 now he was not opposed, "in principle," to the use of physical force, appeared 
 — according to the Attorney-General's repeated cross-questionmgs — to be irre- 
 concileable. But, in the first place, what Mr. Davitt tried to wean the Fenians 
 from was reliance upon force secretly organized — secret conspiracy, in a word. 
 In the second place, though he accepted the " principle " of physical force, he 
 " knew there was no chance." Thirdly, since the end of 1885, ^Ir. Davitt had 
 come to recognize another alternative, for which, he believed, there was a 
 chance. This other alternative was the Gladstonian solution of Home Rule. 
 "On principle," said Mr. Davitt, "I am personally in favour of separation 
 between Great Britain and Ireland ; but I am ready, if the Home Rule experi- 
 ment is tried, to give it loyal support. I believe, if Home Rule had a fair trial, 
 the cry for separation would die out." He said this with an emphatic gesture. 
 Mr.* Davitt's position was perfectly clear. He explained it with downright 
 frankness and sincerity. 
 
 In quoting his remarks on the Home Rule plan, we have, for the sake of 
 connection, anticipated the course of the cross-examination. We now return 
 to its earlier portions. Having done with the Old Bailey trial, Sir Richard 
 
28o Wednesday] Diary of [Jidy 3. 
 
 Webster questioned Mr. Davitt about his views on the Clerkenwell Prison 
 affair ; on the Manchester prison- van attack ; and about the characters 
 and antecedents of the people — Messrs. Biggar, Egan, Parnell, Dillon, Carey 
 (the future informer), and others — who arranged for a complimentary dinner to 
 him on his release from Portland Prison. As to the first, he said he entirely 
 disapproved of any attempt that would imperil the lives of innocent people. 
 As to the rescuers of the police-van, "I have lauded the men," said ^h. 
 Davitt, " and will as long as I live ; " and he remarked that he himself would 
 gladly have joined in the enterprise had he been " ordered." Mr. Davitt was 
 alluding to Mr. Bright's opinion on the Manchester rescue case, when Sir 
 Richard Webster stopped him with another question about the Fenians and 
 their friends who gave him a public reception, on his release. " WTiy," 
 exclaimed ^Slr. Davitt, " every man in Ireland worth his salt was at that 
 time a Fenian." 
 
 At this stage in the proceedings Mr. William O'Brien entered the court and 
 sat down on the solicitors' bench, looking none the worse for his last Irish 
 adventure. Shortly after three o'clock Mr. Parnell arrived ; he left before the 
 Court rose. 
 
 The Attorney- General persevered in his attempt to show that Mr. Davitt 
 was the same unregenerate conspirator after 1878 that he was before it. Mr. 
 Davitt replied with his unvarying candour. Speaking of nine or ten years 
 ago, my idea was, said Mr. Davitt, that the land question should '"' be used as 
 the stepping-stone to independence, that we should treat the landlords as the 
 English garrison — which they are." But then, quickly added Mr. Davitt, 
 smiling upon Sir Richard, " the land programme of the Nationalists is now 
 the land programme of the Tory party." Sir Richard Webster dived into his 
 bundles of papers. 
 
 But while Mr. Davitt was, according to his own account, definitely engaged 
 in the open constitutional movement, was he associating with people who 
 were secretly engaged in importing arms, and directing or inspecting secret 
 military preparations in Ireland? He was questioned about ^Ix. O'Kelly's 
 alleged employment as Arms Agent for the Fenian Brotherhood ; about the 
 purpose of General Millen's visit to Ireland ten years ago ; and about John 
 Devoy's visit to Dublin at the same period. 
 
 To most of these questions Mr. Davitt replied that he must refuse to 
 divulge information upon which he was bound in honour to maintain secrecy. 
 As for ^fr. O'Kelly, and some others about whose antecedents and alleged 
 share in Fenian meetings Mr. Davitt was questioned, he remarked that he 
 must refer Mr. Attorney to those gentlemen themselves. But as for Mr. 
 Matt. Harris, ^Ix. Davitt said at once that he was a member of the Fenian 
 Supreme Council ; " I have his leave to say so," Mr. Davitt explained. But 
 as for other members, "it would be cowardly and dishonourable in me to hold 
 these up to ruin in violation of my pledged word." "Will you say," 
 asked Sir Richard Webster, " that Mr. James O'Kelly did not act with you in 
 distributing arms before your imprisonment?" " I do not ; " Mr. Attorney 
 must question Mr. O'Kelly on that matter. 
 
 The Attorney-General then w^andered off once more into the United States, 
 offering interpretations of ]Mr. Davitt's speeches there, which interpretations 
 Mr. Davitt generally accepted. In fact, Mr. Davitt's ideas about Irish 
 landlordism as the curse of Ireland, and about landlords as "the garrison" 
 never changed. " I am a Republican in principle," he remarked in the course 
 of his replies on this general topic. 
 
 Among the characters, good, bad, and indifferent, about w^hom Mr. Davitt 
 was questioned were James Daly, of Castlebar, and " Scrab" Nally. James 
 Daly had, according to Le Caron's evidence, gone as a Fenian delegate to 
 America ; but according to Mr. Davitt's statement, he had never been in 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Connnission. [July 3. 28 1 
 
 America in any capacity. Daly had not in him the stuff out of which con- 
 spirators were made, Mr. Davitt thought. During earher stages of the trial 
 the Attorney-General had endeavoured to saddle the leaguers with the 
 responsibility for Scrab's wild oratory. ^Ir. Davitt now said that as far as he 
 himself was concerned, he had given orders that Scrab should not be allowed 
 to speak from his (Mr. Davitt's) platforms. Scrab, said Mr. Davitt, was a 
 person upon whom Nature had not wasted any discretion, and who "could no 
 more keep a secret than a sieve could hold water." 
 
 In the afternoon sitting, the Attorney-General asked ]Mr. Davitt if he 
 approved of a letter in which Boyd O'Reilly spoke of Joe Brady as " righting 
 the robber's wrong," and as deserving the respect of Irish patriots all over the 
 world. '-'I no more approve of that letter than I approve of the leading 
 article in The Times justifying the attempt to assassinate the Emperor of the 
 French. ■■ This article was one of three from The Times, which at the 
 beginning of the day's cross-examination ]Mr. Davitt wished to be read. After 
 a string of uninteresting questions about more or less foolish manifestoes from 
 America, ?ilr. Davitt was cross-examined about his connection with The Irish 
 World. Mr. Davitt condemned " Transatlantic's " letters in The World, but 
 he did not hesitate to circulate the paper among, the Irish tenantry, said he, 
 because he thought they would be benefited by the journal's tone of independence 
 and its views on the nationalization of the land. In distributing The World 
 Mr. Davitt had not spent a penny of the Land League's money. ]Mr. Davitt 
 was at that time the correspondent of The World. INIr. Quinn and Mr. 
 Brennan before him were correspondents of The Irish World, and, he said, if 
 they distributed the paper — in other words "spread the light" — they did it 
 as the correspondents of the paper, not as secretaries of the League. 
 
 At last Sir Richard Webster wandered back again to Ireland. What were 
 Mr. _ Davitt's views on landgrabbing ? Grabbing is "stealing," was Mr. 
 Davitt's answer, meaning that the people thought grabbing morally wrong, 
 though it was "not a crime according to the law." Shortly before four 
 o'clock the Attorney-General thought he discovered a dangerous speech of Mr. 
 Davitt's, delivered in Kansas City. But Mr. Lockwood pointed out that in 
 the context Mr. Davitt said that in the struggle with England the Irish must 
 appeal to reason, justice, and common sense. " Yes," said Mr. Davitt, turning 
 to Sir Richard Webster, " it was only a war of ideas, and I have yet to learn 
 that a war of ideas is inconsistent with the British Constitution." The cross- 
 examination, though dull and incoherent, was the cause of a display of humour 
 by a gentleman who is a clever caricaturist and a clever lawyer in one. This 
 artist, Mr. Lockwood, Q.C., drew an amusing caricature of the Shah leading 
 Mr. Attorney to Persia in the character of a missionar}-. The pen and ink 
 portrait of the King of Kings was excellent. Behind the King of Kings, and 
 led by a rope which the Shah carried over his shoulder, Mr. Attorney followed, 
 in knee breeches, and with a clerical coat instead of his silk gown. The work 
 of art was passed quietly round to the general amusement. 
 
 Half a dozen times in the course of his cross-examination to-day did Mr. 
 Davitt decline to answer the Attorney-General. On the second occasion, 
 when Mr. Davitt refused to name members of the Fenian Supreme Council, 
 the President interposed, severely. Said he, " If the witness refuses to answer 
 you had better go on, and after you get through and we see how far you have 
 got, we shall see whether it will be necessary to take any steps." However, 
 in spite of that ominous hint nothing more was said on the subject. ]Mr. Davitt 
 next declined to tell Sir Richard Webster why General :\Iillen came to Ireland 
 from America. " To inspect the militarj' efficiency of the Fenian Brother- 
 hood ? " the Attorney-General suggested. Perhaps— or perhaps not ; nothing 
 more coulcl Mr. Attorney learn from Mr. Davitt. Then there was Dr. 
 Carroll's visit. If there was nothing wrong in Dr. Carroll's mission argued 
 
2S2 Thursday] Diary of J^^ly 4- 
 
 the Attorney-General, why will you not tell us w^hat he came to Ireland for ? 
 Oh, replied ]Mr. Davitt, promptly, " there are many things morally innocent 
 which are illegal in Ireland." Some interesting illustrations of Mr. Davitt's 
 downright frankness came out in his replies to Sir Richard Webster's questions 
 about his tour through Western Ireland in 1879. If Mr. Davitt did see Fenian 
 leaders during his tour, what about it ? Was it not his purpose to win men of all 
 ways of thinking over to the Parnell movement ? ^Ir. Davitt did not know that 
 arms were being distributed at that time. But Islx. Davitt very plainly gave 
 Sir Richard Webster to understand that if he had known, he would not have 
 interfered. Had not all free men the right to carry arms ? If England ruled 
 Ireland justly, why should she object to the Irish possessing arms ? Why 
 should the peasantry be disarmed, while the landlords and their agents had the 
 right to carry rifles and revolvers ? 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FIRST DAY. 
 
 July 4. 
 
 The Attorney-General resumed his cross-examination of Mr. Davitt to-day by 
 asking him about his connection with the Ladies' Land League and what he 
 knew of its books and its funds. Mr. Davitt explained that except in having 
 made the suggestion he had had little or no share in the establishment of the 
 "society. Nor did he know what had become of a book of the society's called, 
 after the famous monastic record, " the Book of Kells." The society's book 
 was a sort of Domesday Book, in which evictions were recorded, and rents of 
 holdings and landlord and tenant relations generally over the whole of Ireland. 
 
 Givmg up his fruitless inquiry into this subject, the Attorney-General 
 plunged into landgrabbing. " You denounced grabbers as traitors," exclaimed 
 the Attorney-General. Yes ; Mr. Davitt acknowledged that he had often 
 denounced them in strong language, but he quickly explained it was the system 
 he denounced. " I don't believe I ever mentioned an individual grabber's 
 name; if I did I am sorry for it." Sir Richard Webster then quoted Mr. 
 Davitt's support of a resolution passed in October, 18S4, at a meeting at 
 ISIaiyborough, and in which grabbing was denounced as " treason to the cause 
 of Ireland," as "a gross outrage on the people," and as a "legal robbery." 
 Mr. Davitt denied that in the form in which he put it, his approval of the 
 Maryborough resolution was an incentive to outrage. Neither had he named 
 any offender, nor was it shown that any person suffered in consequence of his 
 speech. He reiterated his belief that the condemnation of grabbing stopped 
 crime. 
 
 From grabbing to boycotting was a natural transition, and the typical 
 boj'cotting case which the Attorney-General produced was that of Mr. 
 Hegarty, whose story occupied so much of the time of the Court during the 
 earlier stages of the trial. Though believing that ^Ir. Hegarty's story of his 
 boycott was inaccurate, Mr. Davitt wrote, in Mr. Hegarty's behalf, to the 
 president, or some other official of the boycotting branch. 
 
 Though Islx. Davitt Avas at that date, and for a short period in charge of the 
 Land League office, he had "nothing to do" with the League funds except 
 when money passed through his hands for the payment of the clerks. Then 
 the Attorney-General tried another line of attack. When Islx. Davitt visited 
 the Western Counties in 1880, did he search out the Fenian county " centres ? " 
 ISIr. Davitt had no recollection of any such special search ; but Islx. Davitt 
 observed that in his mission as an organizer, and as a proselytizer of extreme 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commissiou. [Jnly 4. 283 
 
 politicians to the open and constitutional movement, he never avoided any 
 man, whatever his politics might be. What was the Fenian "blacklist?" 
 the Attorney-General inquired. Only the list of members who had been 
 expelled from the order by reason of their misconduct — such as misappropria- 
 tion of funds, or for their bad character generally. 
 
 And now there followed a most striking and impressive incident in the day's 
 cross-examination. The Attorney-General put the simple question — simple 
 almost in the unfavourable sense — whether the detection of criminals was 
 not the best way to prevent crime. Obviously it was. Well, then, did Mr. 
 Davitt remember the Widow Walsh case, as it was called ? " Yes," said Mr. 
 Davitt. " jNIrs. Walsh wrote to me saying that her boy was innocent of the 
 charge of murder upon which he was tried, and that they both knew who the 
 murderer was, and that he had escaped to America." "I have not Mrs. 
 Walsh's letter," said Mr. Davitt ; " I must have destroyed it with thousands 
 of other letters." Young Walsh was tried in August, 1882, and in a letter to 
 The Irish JVorld in November of the same year Mr. Davitt gave some 
 particulars about him. Young Walsh was fifteen years old. When her boy 
 was in prison, Widow Walsh heard that attempts were being made to induce 
 him to divulge the murderer's name. She visited him, and begged him to 
 remain firm. Young Walsh died on the scaffold. W^hat did Mr. Davitt 
 think of it ? "If that woman sacrificed her son rather than make an informer 
 of him, I say it was a noble action." A low murmur passed over the 
 audience ; but whether of admiration, or horror, or pity — well, which of the 
 three would the reader prefer it to be ? Mr. Davitt's face grew pallid, and 
 there were " tears in his voice " as he spoke. 
 
 "I," said Mr. Davitt, "have suffered nine years' penal servitude " for 
 conduct like young Walsh's. "You say," continued the Attorney-General, 
 after a pause — " you say that Mrs. Walsh's was a noble action," " Yes," said 
 Mr. Davitt, " on account of the horror the Irish peasantry have of the name 
 of 'Informer.'" "Why did you not communicate with the authorities?" 
 was the Attorney-General's next question. " Never! " exclaimed Mr. Davitt, 
 in a tone now of fierceness ; "I say the authorities are the criminals of 
 Ireland. Communicate with them? not as long as I live." One could see 
 that Mr. Davitt's eyes were filling. For a few moments, and for the first 
 time since his examination began, he almost lost his self-control. " Observe," 
 continued Sir Richard Webster, " this poor boy died protesting his inno- 
 cence." " Ah," Mr. Davitt replied, with an expression of profound sadness, 
 " many have done that in Ireland." Having as it were projected upon his 
 commonplace London background this sudden vision of a fragment of the life of 
 this strange Ireland, the Attorney-General passed on to the story of the " Man- 
 chester martyrs," in respect of whom Mr. Davitt said, in his Walsh episode 
 vein, that "the heroism of self-sacrifice is something to be worshipped in 
 mankind." Being on the topic of violence, Sir Richard Webster alluded to 
 violence against landlords, upon which Mr. Davitt remarked : "I have never 
 preached against landlords individually ; they are only the accidents of a bad 
 system ; against that system I shall preach as long as I live." 
 
 Once more the Attorney-General wandered off to America. What of Mr. 
 Davitt's acquaintance, Finerty? " I rebuked him," said IMr. Davitt, " when- 
 ever, in my presence, he advocated the use of dynamite." He merely thought 
 that Finerty had been embittered by memories of Irish wrong, but that his 
 oratorical bark was worse than his bite. Sir Richard Webster next tried 
 whether under a fresh bombardment of questions Mr. Davitt would abide by 
 his high estimate of Patrick Ford's character. Mr. Davitt repeatedly said 
 that he must speak of Ford as he found him. Ford had assured him three 
 years ago that he had given up dynamite politics for ever, and Mr. Davitt was 
 only too glad to have the assurance. In politics, as in religion, said Mr. 
 
284 Friday] Diary of [J^^^y 5' 
 
 Davitt, we ought to judge charitably of men's past. Several of Mr, Ford's 
 expressions Mr. Davitt unhesitatingly condemned as "stupid," "reprehen- 
 sible," "criminal," but he adhered to his statement that Mr. Ford had 
 changed his politics, and that he was in reality an excellent man. 
 
 Mr. Davitt was still more ready to condemn " Transatlantic's " wild effusions, 
 which unfortunately for Ford's character as a Christian and a philanthropist 
 (Mr. Davitt"s description of him) found admission into T/ie Irish IVorld. In 
 September, 1 886, Sir Richard exclaimed, Mr. Ford said that he stood by 
 all he had written on dynamite ; how could Mr. Davitt reconcile that with his 
 estimate of !Mr. Ford? ^Vhy, answered Mr. Davitt, "he meant what I would 
 mean if I said that I stood by my Fenian record. That would not mean that 
 I am a Fenian now, or intend to be. The considerations under which I be- 
 came a Fenian are not applicable now." But at the end of the cross-examina- 
 tion some very pointed questions were put to 'Mx. Davitt about his extremely 
 strong speeches at Bodyke in June, 18S7. " I was excited," said Mr. Davitt, 
 " I was labouring under strong feeling. I don't like going to evictions, 
 because they excite me. I say it is an outrage upon civilization to pull down 
 houses built by the tenants themselves, because a few pounds are owing to an 
 absentee landlord." 
 
 " I will put a question to you," said Sir Charles Russell, rising to re- 
 examine — a question which the Attorney-General has not asked you, though 
 you have been two days under examination. You are charged with complicity 
 in the Phcenix Park murders. Is there any truth in that?" "None what- 
 ever." Then !Mr. Davitt had an opportunity of further explaining certain 
 circumstances of his Old Bailey trial. He could not at that trial fully account 
 for his letter to the would-be assassin, without implicating, not only his 
 correspondent, but also the two Fenian superiors who were spoken of in the 
 letter by their cipher names of " Fitz " and " Jem." "The day will come," 
 said Mr. Davitt, looking away from Sir Charles Russell, "when these two 
 men will corroborate me, and when the man who wronged me will do me 
 justice." ^Ir. Davitt earnestly repeated what he had written to his two 
 superiors, warning them of their fellow-member's intentions ; and, Mr. Davitt 
 added, the murder did not happen. 
 
 Then returning to the subject of his prison life, Mr. Davitt said he passed 
 much of it in thinking out plans of constitutional agitation, which he should 
 put into execution when he was released. Speaking of the English people, 
 he said that the English people, not being in possession of the franchise in 
 those times, could not be held responsible for the misgovernment of Ireland. 
 The League, he said, has destroyed secret societies, and led the Irish people 
 to see that the plan of Home Rule would satisfy their aspirations. " I know 
 the vast majority of Irish-Americans are in favour of Mr. Parnell's Home 
 Rule policy." In 1880 the dynamite policy men were numerous in America ; 
 but in 1886, the year of the Home Rule Bill, any one who at the Chicago 
 Convention " would have proposed dynamite v.ould have been howled down." 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SECOND DAY. 
 
 July 5. 
 
 A NEW development of the trial to-day. ^Ir. Michael Davitt called a witness 
 of his own, instead of being re-examined as a witness himself. The points 
 upon which it was supposed he would be re-examined by Sir Charles Russell 
 will be dealt with by ^Ix. Davitt in his own concluding speech. Mr. Davitt's 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [July 5. 285 
 
 witness was Mr. J. J. Lowden, Irish barrister, Irish landlord, Irish tenant, 
 Irish Nationalist, all in one. He was an excellent witness — as downright and 
 candid as his examiner — and he succeeded in thoroughly interesting his hearers. 
 He began by showing up Irish landlords who hurried off abroad as soon 
 as they "raised the wind," and who either came back when their money 
 was spent, or sent their bailiffs to turn out tenants who would not or could not 
 pay. Did the landlords whom he knew ever subscribe to relief funds? " Not 
 a shilling." 
 
 This led to the subject of distress, upon which Mr. Davitt produced some 
 striking evidence from T/ie Times. Even INIr. Lowden, who is anything but 
 a lover of The Times, remarked with amusing emphasis, that " The Times \v2JS, 
 truthful on that subject anyhow." The evidence consisted of a number 
 of articles, republished by The Times as recently as 1880, but originally 
 written in the years of the great famine, and exposing those "aristocratic 
 mendicants " (the landlords) as heartless persons who not only did not contribute 
 to the relief of distress, but who would be glad if their tenants could subsist on 
 the potato stalks while they themselves appropriated the " roots." And as the 
 landlords and their friends, continued Mr. Lowden, contrived to " nullify " the 
 agrarian legislation which began with the Liberal Act of 1870, there was 
 nothing left for the tenants to do but to combine, which they did in the Land 
 League of 1879. This led to a series of questions about the meetings which 
 preceded the foundation of the League, and whose perfectly moderate legal and 
 constitutional resolutions were supported on the spot by men like Mr. M. 
 Harris, Mr. Egan, Mr. Brennan. " Had the Fenians anything to do with the 
 Irishtown and Castlebar meetings ? " Mr. Lowden replied that they had not ; 
 though " perhaps " there may have been individual Fenians present. " Nor," 
 he added, " had there come any money from America in support of the meet- 
 ings which led to the formal establishment of the League." 
 
 As to the connection between crime and outrage, Mr. Lowden made 
 the common-sense remark that "most decidedly" there was nothing 
 more likely to tempt a man into outrage than the destruction of his home 
 and the eviction of his family. Boycotting ? There was boycotting even 
 before the League days ; the landlords were adepts at it. "I was myself 
 socially ostracized by them ; they obstructed my professional advancement. 
 The landlords tried to destroy every one who was opposed to them." Mr. 
 Lowden said quite enough to prove that the landlords were not in touch with 
 the people. "Was Dublin Castle in touch with the people?" Mr. Davitt 
 asked, smilingly. " WTiat ! it's not in touch with civilization." In the burst 
 of laughter which greeted this bad account of Dublin Castle Mr. Lowden leant 
 over his box, and nodded, as if to punctuate his sentence. I\Ir. Lowden 
 did not join in the merriment. The mention of Dublin Castle opened the 
 floodgates of his wrath. 
 
 ]Mr. Davitt then led his lively witness over the topic of outrages. In the 
 first place, the perpetration of outrages could not have been encouraged by the 
 League ; for, as Mr. Lowden put it, " outrages were injurious to the League, 
 and blackened its character." During the existence of the League in Mayo, 
 several murders were perpetrated in the county : there was the murder of 
 Lord Mountmorres, the Feerick murder, the Lyden murder, and in the neigh- 
 bouring county of Galway there was the murder of the Huddys. But he held 
 that Lord Mountmorres was murdered because he " eked out his wretched 
 income as a landlord" by doing spy's work for the Castle, and taking bribes ; 
 that Feerick was murdered because he was a " drunken bully " ; that, in 
 a word, the murders were the work of a secret society which wg^s at enmity 
 with the Land League, and which was known as the " Herds" League," a 
 society which was especially strong in the wild region known as the Joyce 
 country, the scene of several of the murders. The Herds' League, said Mr. 
 
286 Friday] Diary of ['July 5- 
 
 Lowden, was " purely and simply a murderers' organization." This Herds' 
 League attacked the property of Land Leaguers — like Mike O'Neil and Pat 
 O'Neil, whose sheep and cattle the "Herds" threw over the clifts. "I 
 swear," exclaimed Mr. Lowden, " that Head-constable Whelehan had these 
 Herds' Leaguers committing outrages, and it was while he was at that work that 
 he lost his life." 
 
 Sir Henry James now rose to cross-examine. Before he came to his most 
 interesting questions he spent much time in asking Mr. Low^den about the 
 persons described by INIr. Davitt as the " Nationalists " who got up the Mayo 
 meetings before the foundation of the League ; why the Archbishop of Tuam 
 wrote a letter in which he opposed the new agitation ; whether it was a fact 
 that in twelve or fifteen months the League collected eighty or ninety thousand 
 pounds all of which, except twenty thousand had been spent in local expenses ; 
 who the organizers and auditors of the League were ; and what had become of the 
 League books. As to the first point, ]Mr. Lowden held that Nationalists did not 
 mean Fenians. As to the second, he averred positively, that a Nationalist like 
 the Archbishop would never have written such a letter ; that it was written 
 (on vague instructions from the Archbishop, who was ninety years old and in 
 his dotage) by the Archbishop's nephew, who was a Tory ; and that he himself 
 {Mr. Lowden) wrote to the papers at the time, saying what he now said in the 
 witness-box. As to the third point, Mr. Lowden was positive that the alleged 
 amount of contribution was grossly exaggerated, and that the rule directing the 
 transmission to Dublin of 75 per cent, of the contributions was of later origin. 
 Before he came to the question of the League books, Mr. Lowden suddenly 
 looked at the clock. It was on the stroke of half-past one. " Lunch time," 
 quoth Mr. Lowden, with a nod. " The only clear piece of evidence I have had 
 from you yet," said Sir Henry James. 
 
 At two o'clock the cross-examination was resumed. Some time before half- 
 past one Mr. Low^den apologized for his " sore voice." Now his voice was in 
 better condition. He declared he knew nothing about the Land League books. 
 Nor did he see how the executive could know, for the executive w-ere "all in 
 gaol." " I was never consulted about the removal of the books," said Mr. 
 Lowden, and "I have never made any inquiries about them." Then he 
 volunteered the interesting remark that, executive oflicer of the Land League 
 as he w"as, he never " came across a Land League document that was of 
 any great importance." " Has anybody else" attempted to find the books, 
 the President asked. Mr. Justice Smith promptly joined in the President's 
 question. Mr. Lockwood replied that whatever documents had been discovered 
 were produced. Sir James Hannen said that he wanted to know into whose 
 hands the books passed when they were taken from the League offices. 
 
 And then Sir Henry James addressed himself to the subject of the Herds' 
 League. " When did you first hear of it? " he asked. " In 18S0 or 1881." 
 But if Mr. Lowden l-oiew so much about the Herds' League, and its head- 
 quarters, did he try to bring its members to justice ? No. And yet the Land 
 League was against crime ; " Why did you not try to bring the Herds to justice ?" 
 "I take my solemn oath," Mr. Lowden replied vehemently, " that the police 
 knew the Herds' League as well as I did ; " and he repeated what he had already 
 said about men like Whelehan and Tracey. "I took no steps whatever," 
 Mr. Lowden replied, in answer to another question ; and he added that 
 to have communicated with the police would have made him unpopular, 
 because "between the people and the police there was no sympathy." Turn- 
 ing to his cross-examiner Mr. Lowden said, " I tell you, Sir Henry James, that 
 w^e understand these things differently in Ireland to what you do in England. 
 It was no business of mine to give information." 
 
 Mr. Lowden, in short, was doing, only less impressively, what ]Mr. Davitt 
 did the day before — he was raising the curtain over a fragment of the life 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Coimnission, [July 9. 287 
 
 of contemporary Ireland, a life as strange and unintelligible to the people 
 of London as if it were life in another planet. Sir Henry tried him again. 
 " If you had information of a kind that would probably lead to the detection of 
 a criminal, would you give that information to the police? " Mr. Lo^vden 
 paused for a long time. At last he replied, " I would give the information to 
 the Press — but to go privately to the police, and give them the information 
 would be to rank myself among all the scoundrels and ruffians my country 
 has produced." Mr. Lowden's blood was up. He struck the desk with his 
 fist as he exclaimed, " Help those police who serve as spies and who 
 stab women in the back ! " He was alluding to a savage bayonet-and-baton 
 charge by the police in Mayo some years ago. In answer to an insinuating 
 -question by Sir Henry James as to whether his League colleagues would act 
 as he did, Mr, I^owden flatly declined to speak in their name. He then 
 observed that what the Irish peasantry objected to was, not the detection of 
 crime, but giving assistance to the police. He strenuously maintained that, 
 although he had not given information to the police, he had risked his life in 
 denouncing outrages, and that his denunciations materially contributed to the 
 break-up of the Herds' League. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRD DAY. 
 
 July 9. 
 
 Four of the Parliamentary members " charged " were examined to-day. 
 First came Mr. Garrett Byrne, M.P. for Wicklow. It was difficult to find out 
 what Mr. Byrne was charged with. But from the multitude of his speeches of 
 the last ten years two were "put in" to prove his bad character as a 
 politician. One of the speeches was described as having been delivered in 
 Waterford, and now it turned out that Mr. Byrne had, as he expressed 
 it, "never been in the county of Waterford up to this moment." 
 
 Then came Mr. Jeremiah Jordan, member for West Clare. Of his speeches 
 also, only two were " put in," though, like his predecessor in the box, he had 
 delivered a multitude of them. From Mr. Jordan his cross-examiner could 
 learn little or nothing. The third witness, Mr. Thomas Mayne, member for 
 Mid-Tipperary, was confronted with several specimens of his own picturesque 
 rhetoric. Mr. Mayne is prompt, precise, definite, resolute ; and he looks it. 
 Did he in one of his speeches liken landgrabbing unto leprosy and cholera — 
 whose victims must be shunned ? Why not ? though he did not, at the 
 moment, recollect the figurative expression. Mr. Mayne argued the point 
 with Sir Henry James. Said he, if people do have cholera or leprosy, 
 surely the sensible plan is to steer clear of them. And when people contracted 
 the moral disease of grabbing, they ought to be isolated. That was all he 
 meant. Boycotting was, as Mr. Mayne brusquely defined it, "the science of 
 ■severely letting a man alone." "Would you," asked Sir Henry James, 
 " boycott a man to the extent of depriving him of the necessaries of life ? " He 
 would. Mr. Mayne boldly went as far as his logic carried him : " If the 
 boycotted man wants necessaries, he knows on what conditions he can have 
 them." He must, said IMr. Mayne in effect, take the risks if he attempts to 
 break down the tenants' combination for self-defence. But, in answer to Mr. 
 Reid, the member for Mid-Tipperary said he had never known an instance of 
 boycotting carried to such extremities. 
 
 The next witness, Mr. John O'Connor, member for South Tipperary, occupied 
 the Court for the rest of the day — some five hours. He was one of the most 
 
288 Tuesday] Diary of [J^ily 9- 
 
 interesting witnesses who had yet appeared for the defence. He was only 
 fifteen when he became a Fenian — a tender age for a political career, secret or 
 open. He took the Fenian oath in 1866. His conversion (to use Mr. 
 O'Connor's own expression) to Mr, Parnell's constitutionalism took place ten 
 years ago. But the change had been coming over him many months before he 
 either heard or saw the future Nationalist leader. It was begun by the letters 
 of John Devoy, who advised the Fenian youth of Ireland to emerge from their 
 " rat-holes of conspiracy " and take part in the national life of their country — 
 meaning the open agitation. 
 
 After that, said ^Ir. O'Connor, I read the speeches of Mr. Davitt, now 
 released from Dartmoor, where, like a beast of burden, he was made to work 
 with a horse-collar round his neck. Mr. O'Connor's ''conversion" was- 
 completed by Mr. Parnell's speeches at Cork in 1880, and Mr. Parnell's 
 election for Cork, in spite of the disadvantages under which he laboured at the 
 moment. Once converted Mr. O'Connor entered into his new work with 
 a will. He founded a branch of the Land League in Cork. Arrested as a 
 suspect in July, 1881, and released in June, 18S2, he founded, upon the ruins 
 of the Land League, the Labour League of Ireland, which soon became merged 
 in the National League, 'Mx. O'Connor entering the new association as a 
 member of its executive council. 
 
 Mr. Lockwood, examining iNIr. O'Connor, questioned him minutely about 
 the story of his doings in Cork in 1886, as told by Sergeant Faussett, one of 
 The Times constabulary- witnesses. Mr. O'Connor's version of the affair 
 differed widely from that presented by the prosecution. He did not accompany 
 the moonlighter prisoners, as the prosecution said he did ; he came upon them 
 unexpectedly at Cork railway station. "I saw Dr. Brosnan among them ; he 
 was handcuffed to another prisoner ; I went and shook hands with him, and 
 told him to ' cheer up,' and that has been made a charge against me." AVhen 
 the crowd in the streets cheered for the Kerry moonlighters, Mr. O'Connor 
 gave them a counter-cheer " for a fair trial." "I did not say down with^ 
 British law, but give us British law. I did not say down with the Cork juries, 
 but down with packed juries." Nor did INIr. O'Connor stop his car before the 
 house of a Cork juror, in order to intimidate him, but only to wait for the 
 Mayor of Cork, who lived near the juror in question. " I always,'" said ]\Ir. 
 O'Connor, " denounced crime." As soon as he heard of the murder of INIr. 
 Curtin he left Cork on a visit to the bereaved family. 
 
 Now came the cross-examination, conducted by Mr. Atkinson. Hardly had 
 Mr. Atkinson begun when Mr. O'Connor stopped him with one of those 
 frequent refusals to give information which provoked several remonstrances 
 and significant warnings from Sir J. Hannen in the course of the morning 
 and afternoon. Mr, O'Connor refused to tell from whom he received the 
 Fenian oath. But he admitted with the utmost frankness that he distributed 
 arms, and that every man who could pay for a rifle got one. Mr. O'Connor 
 took his cross-examiner completely by surprise when he said that he first met 
 Mr. John Devoy in 1874, and in America, " where I was on a Fenian 
 mission." What was Mr. O'Connor's business with John Devoy, Mr, 
 Atkinson asked, with much curiosity. With a smile, Mr. John O'Connor 
 refused to say more than that he met John Devoy there in 1874. " I do 
 indeed object to tell you my business with John Devoy." 
 
 Here Sir James Hannen, frowning ominously for some time, sharply inter- 
 rupted the cross-examination. Said the President: " The excuses which are 
 made are not for a moment tenable in a court of justice. The illegal oath of 
 an illegal association not to give evidence is, of course, not to be recognized. 
 My brothers and I have a delicate task to perform, and I do not propose at 
 present to take the measures which are in my power. All I will do at present 
 is to point out to this gentleman and to others who may be in the same 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [July 9. 289 
 
 position, that they must necessarily have an unfortunate influence on our 
 judgment when we find that at every point we are obstructed in the inquiry 
 we are bound to pursue by these refusals to give evidence." 
 
 ISIr. Atkinson then tried to learn from him the business on which he had had 
 interviews with Mr. John Devoy in Ireland, in 1879. Sir Henry James ako 
 contended that it was of the utmost importance to know " the circumstances 
 under which Devoy came to Ireland in 1879 to assist in the organization of 
 the Land League." But Mr. O'Connor surprised Sir James and his colleagues 
 by telling them that John Devoy came for a very different purpose — came to 
 dissuade him from joining the Land League. Yet it was John Devoy 's letters 
 which, according to Mr. O'Connor's own account, began the process of his con- 
 version to the open agitation. But John Devoy in Ireland was trying to wean Mr. 
 John O'Connor from the open agitation. How was that ? Mr. John O'Connor 
 could not tell precisely. Perhaps Mr. Devoy had changed his mind. Then 
 an idea flashed upon ^vlr. Atkinson. Were these apparently irreconcilable 
 actions of John Devoy a proof of The Times contention that the secret asso- 
 ciation (the party of physical force) and the open movement — Fenianism and 
 Parnellism — were merely different aspects of one and the same thing ? When 
 John Devoy advised the Fenian youth to come out of their " rat-holes of 
 conspiracy, and enter municipal and other forms of local politics," did that 
 mean that a man should remain a Fenian and still enter municipal life ? 
 That was Mr. Atkinson's question, repeated over and over again, with the 
 object of suggesting, if not proving, that the open or Parnellite movement had 
 never yet separated itself from the secret conspiracy. 
 
 The President, irritated at Mr. O'Connor's steady refusal to give information 
 about details, and tired, perhaps, of ISIr. Atkinson's repetitions, remarked that 
 "we have sufficient to infer from if the witness ['this man,' as he once 
 called him] will not give direct answers." Upon this, Mr. O'Connor became 
 indignant. " With every respect to the Court, I am giving direct answers 
 upon matters I know of. There is no equivocation about me. I have told 
 you of matters to which I will not speak, but of those which I can I will." 
 W^hile he said this, Mr. John O'Connor nodded and clenched his fist, as if he 
 had made up his mind that no power on earth should extract from him infor- 
 mation he swore to keep secret. 
 
 Even before this incident the President and the witness came into collision 
 on this same question of a respect for a Fenian oath. " I have too much 
 regard for my own obligation," ^Nlr. O'Connor had just said. "Are you a 
 Protestant or a Roman Catholic ? " the President inquired, in a tone of 
 severity. " A Catholic, my lord." "And do you mean to assert that your 
 Church justifies your refusal to give evidence on the ground that you have 
 taken an illegal oath ?" "Well, I have never studied the theological aspect 
 of the case." "Nor the moral ? " " No. But I know what my own code of 
 honour is, and I mean to adhere to it." 
 
 After a short pause Sir James leant back in his chair, and allowed the cross- 
 examination to proceed. Replying to further questions of Mr. Atkinson, Mr. 
 John O'Connor stated that he had not formally separated himself from the 
 Fenian body, but that he had " gradually dropped out of the organization." 
 And it was true that at a meeting at Bantry in 1880 he had declared against 
 the chairman's resolution condemning the revolutionary movement. Why, 
 having joined the open movement, did Mr. O'Connor do that? Because, 
 ]\Ir. O'Connor explained, the chairman's speech would do more harm than 
 good; "there were in the neighbourhood many influential Fenians less friendly 
 to the open movement than I was, and it would be a mistake to arouse their 
 jealousy and enmity." 
 
 The Judges were more irritated with Mr. John O'Connor than with any 
 other principal witness on the Parnellite side. His reticence on matters about 
 
 20 
 
290 Wednesday] Diary of [July lo. 
 
 which his Fenian oath bound him to secrecy annoyed them. His speeches and 
 some of his accusations against the " Castle " authorities shocked them. INIr. 
 Justice Day smiled, however, when Mr. O'Connor, confronted with one of his 
 own speeches, said he must have expressed himself '-figuratively" when he 
 spoke of " shouldering a rifle " in Ireland's cause. \Vhat, ^Ir. Atkinson 
 wanted to know, did Mr. O'Connor mean by saying he would not advise his 
 hearers to nail the grabber's ears to the pump ? Did Mr. O'Connor ever say 
 it? Mr. O'Connor could not recollect. "But I dare say I did say it," 
 remarked Mr. O'Connor. But surely these were words which, if a man 
 uttered them, he must remember. " I do itot remember them," sharply 
 retorted Mr. O'Connor ; and, turning to the President, he remarked that it 
 would be " unreasonable" to expect him to recollect individual expressions ten 
 years after. 
 
 In a minute or two more Mr. O'Connor damaged his cause by his candour. 
 Advice which once upon a time Mr. O'Connor had given to the Irish police to 
 throw up the service rather than perform certain duties was treated by Mr. 
 Atkinson as if it w^ere an attempt to " corrupt the force." " My desire was to 
 disaffect the force," said Mr. O'Connor. "Was that a way to put down 
 crime?" retorted Mr. Atkinson. "I did more to put down crime than the 
 Irish poHce ever did," was Mr. O'Connor's answer. But the portion of his 
 evidence which appeared to produce the most unfavourable impression upon 
 the Bench was that in which he accused — "not the Lord-Lieutenant," as he 
 said — but the local officials in Castleisland district, of permitting Poff and 
 Barrett [two alleged moonlighters] to perish on the gallows, knowing them to 
 be innocent, and knowing who the real criminals were. But when pressed for 
 his authority for such a statement Mr. O'Connor could only say that every 
 man in Kerry assured him of its truth. "And that is all the evidence you 
 have," Sir James Hannen remarked, " for making these serious charges." 
 " If the authorities knew who the culprits were," said Mr. Justice Smith, 
 " why did they not hang them ? " And when Mr. O'Connor, defending his 
 hearsay evidence, argued that hearsay was his only ground for believing in 
 the existence of Australia, the President abruptly and contemptuously charac- 
 terized the argument as "ridiculous." "It is a shocking charge," exclaimed 
 the President, "and it ought not to be made except on evidence." 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTH DAY. 
 
 July io. 
 
 Proceedings began to-day with Mr. Lockwood's application for the tem- 
 porary release of Dr. Tanner from prison, in order that he might attend as a 
 witness. The application was granted under the usual conditions, and then 
 Mr. Atkinson cross-examined I\Ir. John O'Connor tediously and minutely on 
 certain expenditures made by him during the interval between the suppression 
 of the Land League and the rise of its successor. The total in question — three 
 hundred and forty-three pounds — included small sums the history of which Mr. 
 Atkinson appeared to think Mr. O'Connor should have kept in perfect recol- 
 lection. All that Mr. O'Connor could tell him was that a hundred pounds 
 was spent on registration, and the rest in paying the travelling expenses of 
 organizers and lecturers. 
 
 Then Mr. Atkinson questioned him about his past speeches, notably a Cork 
 speech of 1880, in which Mr. O'Connor was represented as having advised his 
 hearers to " make " the government of Ireland by the English " impossible." 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Coniniission. [July lo. 291 
 
 In looking through that speech a short time ago in his cell in Tullamore, Mr. 
 O'Connor marked some passages whose authenticity he thought doubtful. 
 *']Make'' was one of the doubtful expressions about which '"I made a point 
 of interrogation in my own mind," said ^Ix. O'Connor, much to the amuse- 
 ment of the Bench and the Q.C.'s. What he had really meant was that his 
 -countrymen should expose the failure of the English administration of 
 Ireland. Once or twice Mr. O'Connor more than hinted that only a 
 constabulary reporter would have reproduced his speeches so badly. 
 
 What ^Ir. O'Connor had to say about his speech on the Prince of Wales's 
 visit was very interesting. His account of the matter coincided with Mr. 
 William O'Brien's. At first Mr. O'Connor and others advised the Irish people 
 to "preserve towards the Prince of Wales a respectful neutrality." But the 
 Nationalists' indignation was aroused when two London journals described 
 the reception as a triumphant reply to " the challenge thrown down by the 
 Separatists." Mr. O'Connor and his friends prepared an address to the 
 Prince protesting against the misrepresentations of The Times (one of the two 
 papers mentioned), and showing the Prince of Wales what the reasons were 
 for Irish disloyalty and disaffection. The deputation that went to present the 
 address at Mallow station was, said JNIr. O'Connor, bludgeoned and driven 
 off by the police. In one of his last answers to INIr. Lockvvood, Mr. O'Connor 
 declared he did not consider himself morally bound by the Coercion Act (under 
 which he is still a prisoner). He declared that the Irish constabulary were at 
 this moment more hated than ever they had been ; and he remarked that Mr. 
 Atkinson had not yet replied to his challenge to produce a single instance 
 of crime following as a consequence from any speech of his. 
 
 Mr. Daniel Crilly, M.P., of The Nation newspaper, and member for North 
 Mayo, was the next witness. He stated that he had constantly been denouncing 
 crime. His examination and cross-examination occupied only a minute or two. 
 When ]vlr. Crilly left the box Mr. Lockwood rose to announce that he would 
 now introduce, from places outside the five counties of Galway, Mayo, Clare, 
 Kerry, and Cork witnesses of good social position, who, from their own 
 personal experience, would testify to the peaceful spirit and beneficial influence 
 of the League. Here they are in the order in which they appeared in the 
 box : Mr. Gallagher, Poor Law Guardian of Strabane ; ^Nlr. O'Hagan, Chair- 
 man of Commissioners, from county jNIonaghan ; Mr. Ryan, ]Mayor of Cork ; 
 Mr. O'Keefe, Mayor of Limerick ; jNIr. Toole, Mayor of Waterford; Mr. 
 Coyle, Mayor of Kilkenny ; ^Ir. Devereux, Mayor of Wexford ; ]Mr. Conolly, 
 Mayor of Sligo ; Mr. Meehan, Chairman of Maryborough Commissioners ; 
 j\Ir. William Adams, Chairman of Tullamore Commissioners ; Mr. Delahunt, 
 of Wexford. 
 
 All these men, occupying prominent positions in their respective communi- 
 ties, agreed in testifying to the " respectability" of the membership of the 
 League, and to its great services in discouraging and repressing outrage and 
 crime. 
 
 The incident of the day was Mr. Davitt's application for summoning before 
 the Court the editor of a London evening paper in which had appeared a 
 paragraph describing alleged precautions for protecting the Court against 
 dynamiters. Sir James Hannen quietly ridiculed the story about the bogus 
 dynamite machines said to have been deposited in or about the court. For his 
 own part, Sir James Hannen was not a bit afraid of being blown up ; he 
 regarded the whole thing as a "silly hoax." The President, however, failed 
 to soothe Mr. Davitt, who maintained that there was an attempt somewhere 
 to bring discredit upon the defence. Mr. Davitt at last exclaimed that he 
 * ' broadly accused Le Caron of having brought the machines, with the sanc- 
 tion of Houston." As Mr. Davitt said this, he turned round and pointed to 
 Mr. Houston's accustomed seat. " You have no right to say that, ^Ir. Davitt, 
 
292 Thursday] Diary of [J^^ly ii» 
 
 without direct evidence," Mr. Justice Smith remarked, quietly. Sir James 
 Hannen only observed that he regretted Mr. Davitt's departure from his 
 usual "demeanour." " My lord," replied Mr. Davitt, '*I feel ver}' strongly 
 about it." " Yes, I know that is so." 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTH DAY. 
 
 July ii. 
 
 If the trial has been prolonged, it is hardly the fault of the "defence," as it is 
 called. To-day, fourteen Nationalist witnesses were disposed of. Mr. Raid, 
 (^.C, has so rigidly excluded all evidence which he did not regard as strictly 
 relevant, and the witnesses have been produced in such rapid succession, that 
 the Court must have been prepared for his welcome announcement of the 
 approaching end of the Nationalist case. Mr. Reid informed the judges that 
 only two or three witnesses remained to be examined. 
 
 Mr. Meehan, chairman of the -\Iar}'borough Town Commissioners, re- 
 appeared to answer some questions by Sir Henry James, on entries and 
 resolutions contained in the minute book of the Maryborough branch of the 
 League. Several of the resolutions were directed against the occtipation of 
 evicted farms, and spoke of the expulsion of "traitors" from League mem- 
 bership. Traitors was merely another word for grabbers, and the " penalty " 
 threatened in the minute was nothing — meant expulsion only. ^Yould members of 
 the League be allowed to deal with other members who had been expelled ? Sir 
 Henry James asked. That, according to Mr. Meehan's answers, might depend 
 upon circumstances. In a word, Mr, Meehan's account of the League in 
 ISIaryborough corresponded generally with what other witnesses had said 
 regarding branches in other parts of Ireland. 
 
 The next witness was Mr. Foley, M.P. He had been examined before — 
 about a hundred pound cheque of Mr. Egan's, payable to Mr. Frank Byrne. 
 He had produced the cheque in court, but without its counterfoil. Now he came 
 provided with it. The cheque was crossed, and 'Mr. Foley took it in exchange for 
 an open one of his own, made payable to Mr. Frank Byrne. He understood 
 the money was for Land League purposes, and he had cashed several cheques 
 of the same description for Air. Byrne. Mr. George Shrubsole, Mr. Foley's 
 clerk, entered the witness-box to corroborate Mr. Foley's statement. 
 
 Mr. Ryan, the Mayor of Cork, who had appeared the day before, was the 
 next witness. His cross-examination, resumed by Mr. Atkinson, turned 
 principally on the attitude of the Cork leaguers towards crime perpetrated in 
 outside localities. Mr. Ryan's fellow-leaguers had denounced the Phoenix 
 Park murders. ^Yhy did they decline to take part with the neighbouring 
 League branch of Butt)want in an attempt to bring some outragemongers to 
 justice? That was in Februaiy, i88l. Mr. Ryan was not quite sure, at this 
 distance of time, what his reasons were for declining ; but probably he thought 
 that the Government might be left to do their own police work. Some of the 
 next witness's answers bore directly upon this matter. The witness was Mr. 
 Flood, chairman of the Longford Town Commissioners. In his answers to 
 Mr. Davitt and IMr. Reid he declared that the people would not give informa- 
 tion to police authorities, whom they regarded as their enemies. "There is 
 no sympathy between the people and the police — who are the servants of the 
 landlords." 
 
 Mr. John Hammond, of the Carlow Town Commission, showed that in his 
 part of Ireland immunity from crime co-existed with immunity from eviction. 
 
TJmrsday] the Pavnell Commission, [July ii. 293 
 
 Then there followed JMr. Foley, of the Nenagh Town Commission (county 
 Tipperary), who said that the Nenagh National League branch contained all 
 the "respectability" of the place, and whose examination and cross-examina- 
 tion scarcely occupied sixty seconds. Then there followed Mr. Robinson, of 
 the Kingstown Commission, who said that most of the League funds were 
 spent on parliamentary, municipal, and poor law registration ; Mr. Robert 
 Sweeney, Town Commissioner from county Donegal, who said his fellow- 
 leaguers sometimes were useful as arbitrators between landlords and tenants ; 
 and Mr. Hughes, of Belfast, who testified to the value of the League, as 
 an instrument of political education. 
 
 And now came the principal witness of the day, Mr. Thomas Condon, 
 member for East Tipperary. One of his first answers was characteristic of 
 Ireland. He informed the Court with a smile that he had just learned of his 
 re-election as Mayor of Clonmel. Mr, Condon is still a prisoner under the 
 Coercion Act, and six weeks of his time have yet to expire. Mr. Condon was 
 once upon a time an out-and-out Fenian. But long ago he came to the con- 
 clusion that Fenianism was used up, and that the sensible thing to do was to 
 go in for the Nationalist movement. Replying to Mr. Davitt, Mr. Condon 
 said that Tipperary was troubled with agrarian outrages ten years before the 
 rise of the Land League. Mr. Condon raised a laugh by saying he was told 
 that the Carlton Club had contributed ^^250 towards O'Donovan Rossa's 
 electioneering expenses at Tipperary in 1869! Sir James Hannen at once 
 interfered. "Stories of that kind," said he, "should not be dragged in. 
 Such statements should not be made without some foundation of fact." Sir 
 James thought the story absurd. i\Ir. Condon replied with the utmost cool- 
 ness, that had he known he was to be questioned on the matter, he would 
 have been able to produce his proofs. " Reserve your statement," the 
 President replied, "until you are in a position to prove it." i\Ir. Condon 
 next observed that of all the speeches he had delivered not one was "put 
 in '"" against him by the prosecution. Yet, as he remarked, he was put into 
 prison for having been present at a meeting whereat was delivered a speech 
 that he not only did not deliver, but did not even hear ! This was the 
 speech in which Mr. Healy said that though the ratepayers had to find a 
 thousand pounds for Constable Leahy's injuries, received at the ^litchelstown 
 fnassacres, they would have had to pay nothing if Constable Leahy had 
 been killed outright. 
 
 Mr. Condon quickly disposed of the story formerly told in the box by The 
 Times witness, Mitchell. Mitchell said that, being under the boycott, he 
 bought some meat in Mr. Condon's shop ; that having made his purchase, he 
 was met by ^Ir. Condon outside ; and that Mr. Condon told him if he had 
 been in the shop at the time, customer ^Mitchell would have got " the knife," 
 in place of provisions. " Not a shadow of foundation for the story," said ^Ir. 
 Condon. " I never knew the man, I don't know him, I never saw him until 
 lately when he was pointed out to me in London." Nor, according to Mr. 
 Condon's account, could his shop assistant have threatened Mitchell, for the 
 assistant was a Protestant and an anti-Nationalist, and more likely to befriend 
 INIitchell than to boycott him. 
 
 The testimony of some more of The Times witnesses was flatly contradicted 
 by T. Berrane, Joseph Kelly, and John M'Carthy. Berrane denied that 
 Macaulay, convicted of sharing in the Crossmolina conspiracy, was a member 
 of the League. Mr. Berrane was secretary of the branch. His evidence was 
 corroborated by ]Mr. Kelly, president of the branch. A jovial witness was 
 INIr. Kelly. He must be a general merchant, for, as Sir Henry James, inter- 
 preting ^Ir. Kelly's brogue, repeated to the President, " he can clothe any 
 one ot us from the cradle to the grave." Lastly, ]Mr. M'Carthy, League 
 branch president, declared that neither he nor anybody in county Longford 
 
294 Friday] Diary of [J^dy 12. 
 
 ^vould believe The Times witness lago on his oath ; and that there was no> 
 truth whatever in lago's story that the League branch had resolved to shoot a 
 man named Scanlon for having taken an evicted farm. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTH DAY. 
 
 July 12. 
 
 The court to-day presented a spectacle somewhat unusual of late. Counsel 
 on both sides were present in full strength ; and Sir Richard Webster and Sir 
 Charles Russell were in their places early. Mr. Parnell, who seldom appears 
 in court, was among the first to arrive. As soon as the judges took their seats, 
 Sir Charles Russell requested that Mr. Soames should be instructed to pro- 
 duce a list of his payments to witnesses, and also his communications with 
 agents in Ireland and America. The Attorney-General mildly remarked that 
 he did not "see " on what grounds Sir Charles Russell based his application. 
 With the rejoinder that Sir Richard Webster would see presently, Sir Charles 
 Russell called out the name of Mr. John Mather Hogg, merchant, Dublin, 
 who thereupon entered the witness-box. 
 
 Mr. Hogg, a member of the General Committee of the Irish Loyal and 
 Patriotic Union, was examined as to his knowledge of the financial manage- 
 ment of the Union. The object was partly to ascertain whether the Union 
 was the source from which the purchase-money of the Piggott letters was in 
 the first place obtained, and, if so, by what channels the money reached the 
 purchaser — in other words, the forger. Sir Charles Russell's questions recalled 
 the livelier scenes of the trial, when he announced that no effort would be 
 spared to unearth the "foul conspiracy" behind Pigott and Houston. It 
 turned out that Houston during his negotiations with Pigott had borrowed 
 sums of money from Mr. Hogg. But, as Mr. Hogg now explained in the 
 witness-box, ]\Ir. Hogg knew absolutely nothing, before the autumn of 18S7, 
 of the transactions between Pigott and Houston. Mr. Hogg added that 
 although he had lived in Dublin all his life, he had not known anything, good 
 or bad, about Pigott. Mr. Hogg was not a member of the finance committee 
 of the Union ; but, like Mr. T. W. Russell, he was authorized to sign its 
 cheques. He had no recollection of the payment of Union money to the Dr. 
 Macguire who lent Houston ^850. As for the money which he himself lent 
 Houston, it was not Union money, but his own, and he understood that 
 Houston required it for purposes w^holly unconnected with Union business — 
 for purely private purposes. 
 
 First of all, on the 30th of April, 1886, he lent him sixty pounds, which was 
 repaid within a fortnight. A little later Houston — then, as he still is, secretary 
 of the Union — asked him for a loan of three hundred. According to his own 
 fluent story, as given in the witness-box, 'Mx. Mather Hogg must have been a 
 little staggered at this request. Mr. Hogg asked for a day or two to think it 
 over. He did think it over ; and then, said ]Mr. Mather Hogg, what do you 
 want all that money for ? Oh, for purely private reasons. Not for Stock Ex- 
 change speculations ? asked INIr. Hogg. No ; Mr. Houston had never in his 
 life tried his hand at Stock Exchange business. These assurances satisfied Mr. 
 Hogg, and in a day or two Houston was told that he might have the money. 
 Houston borrowed from him, in all, three hundred and ten pounds, mostly re- 
 paid. In an earlier part of his examination by Sir Charles Russell, ]Mr. Hogg 
 said that the Union paid a small sum to Sir Rowland Blennerhasset for his 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission, [July 12. 295 
 
 travelling expenses. " I have no questions to ask," said the Attorney-General, 
 when Sir Charles Russell sat down. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell then called on Mr. Soames. Sir Charles Russell's 
 questions to him were intended to find out how Mr. Soames came to know 
 Le Caron ; how Pigott came to be employed in visiting (on The Times behalf) 
 convicts in prison ; how the " Castle " authorities procured documents for The 
 Times; and how the convict witnesses were brought over to England. Mr. 
 Soames first heard of Le Caron through Mr. Macdonald, at the end of i8S8, 
 And in consequence of Le Caron's having lost his post as Government spy, 
 Mr. Anderson of the Home Office had been told that Le Caron should not be 
 allowed to want so long as his present employers had money. 
 
 Mr. Soames then left the box, and Mr. Houston entered it. Some of Mr. 
 Houston's dates were noteworthy — the I.L.P.U. was founded, and Mr, 
 Houston first came to know Pigott, and " Parnellism Unmasked" was 
 published in the summer of 1885, just when the hubbub of the great political 
 struggle of the autumn was beginning to be heard throughout the constituencies. 
 " Parnellism Unmasked," Pigott's pamphlet, became in ]SIr. Houston's hands 
 " Parnellism" simply ; and in the fulness of time, " Parnellism " blossomed, in 
 the pages of a London journal, into " Parnellism and Crime." The Union paid 
 Pigott sixty pounds for his " Parnellism Unmasked." JNIr. Houston could not 
 recollect who introduced him to Mr. Pigott but he thought it must have been 
 one of the politicians associated with him during the 1885 election — possibly 
 Lord R. Grosvenor. 
 
 Lord Richard Grosvenor, of the I.L.P.U. (the London branch of which w^as 
 founded in 1S86), was one of those from whom, during his transactions with 
 Mr. Pigott, Mr. Houston borrowed money. Sir Rowland Blennerhasset was 
 another. 'Professor [Macguire was a third. Said jNIr. Houston, " I told 
 Professor Macguire what I wanted the money for." Sir Charles Russell 
 appeared to think it strange that so poor a man as Dr. Macguire should have 
 had so much money to lend. Mr. Houston thought that Dr. Macguire was 
 well off, "and I think so still." "I repaid him in 1887." And yet Dr. 
 Macguire died poor ? Yes, Mr. Houston admitted that ; adding that he was 
 " surprised," and that he could not understand where the doctor's money 
 "could have gone." Sir Charles Russell then asked whether there was 
 anything to show that Dr. Macguire had paid money to the Union ? Not the 
 " slightest trace " of such a thing, said the Union Secretary. Did Dr. 
 Macguire keep a banking account? Yes. At any rate, Dr. Macguire told 
 Mr. Houston that he had money in a bank at Galway. But he advanced the 
 loan to ^Ix. Houston, not by cheque, but in bank-notes. Here ]\Ir. Houston 
 produced a cheque for ^^loo, paid to Eugene Davis through Mr. Pigott. 
 Sir Charles Russell carefully studied this interesting receipt of Davis's. 
 Then, looking up, "Do you really think, Mr. Houston," said he, "that 
 this is not Mr. Pigott's handwriting?" In an off-hand way and with a smile, 
 Mr. Houston remarked that he did not need to look. But " look," repeated 
 Sir Charles Russell. Houston looked carelessly, smilingly, as if, in his good 
 nature, he wished to humour his examiner. INIr. Houston was satisfied that 
 the handwriting was not the departed Pigott's. 
 
 At last Sir Charles Russell reached the point at which he \\'as all the while 
 aiming. Let us probe this business to the bottom by a scrutiny of the I.L.P.U. 
 books. Houston was ready with his answer. Turning round to the judges, 
 he informed them that he was instructed to say that the Union books were at 
 their lordships' disposal, but that the committee objected to having thems 
 placed "in the hands of our political opponents." " I quite appreciate the 
 force of that objection," retorted Sir Charles, on the instant. The Court 
 laughed, and a " hear, hear," was barely audible in the back seats below the 
 main gallery. 
 
296 Friday] Diary of IJ^^b' i-- 
 
 Sir Charles Russell based his application on the "suspicion" that the 
 Union was Pigott's paymaster, and Dr. Macguire the medium through which 
 the money was passed ; and also on the proposition that " various agencies, 
 all working to the same end, had been placed at the disposal of those repre- 
 senting The Times.'''' To this application the President objected, first on 
 the ground that it involved charges against persons not before the Court, and 
 secondly, that the only question with which the Court was concerned was the 
 truth or falsehood of the charges. Upon this Sir Charles Russell turned round 
 to Mr. Asquith, who promptly rose to address the judges. The Act imposes 
 upon your lordships, said Mr. Asquith, the duty of "inquiring into and 
 reporting on" the charges. "Yes, whether they are true or false," Mr. 
 Justice Smith interposed. But Mr. Asquith held that the judges were bound 
 to do more than that : — 
 
 "The Act imposes upon your lordships the duty of inquiring into and reporting not only 
 into the truth and falsehood of these charges and allegations, but as to the circumstances 
 under which they were put forward, and as to their genesis, their origin, and growth. This 
 is material from the point of view of enabling your lordships' to understand and appreciate the 
 evidence that has been brought before you. Even if your lordships' sole duty is to inquire 
 into the charges, it is material to consider whence they proceeded, by what men they were 
 put forward, and by what means they were engendered. " 
 
 Then the Attorney-General spoke. Repeating Mr. Houston's objection, he 
 intimated that there would be no objection to letting Mr. Cunynghame inspect 
 the books. But Sir Charles Russell would not be satisfied with any such 
 partial concession. And then Sir James Hannen gave his decision : — 
 
 " We are of opinion that the inspection ought not to be granted. The Commission which is 
 given to us, is to inquire into these charges ; we can attach no other meaning than that we are 
 to inquire into their truth or falsehood. Any evidence to this purpose we should admit and have 
 admitted. The examination which has taken place to-day has been to a great extent beyond 
 what in strictness, would, we think, be admissible. Even if it should be proved that the 
 money of the Loj-al and Patriotic Union had been paid for the purpose of putting before the 
 public these statements which are now complained of, still the only question we have to 
 determine is whether or not these charges are true or false. We therefore reject the 
 application. '' 
 
 The words w^ere hardly out of the President's mouth when Mr. Parnell 
 turned round and handed a paper to Sir Charles Russell. Sir Charles, rising, 
 intimated respectfully to the Court that in consequence of the President's 
 ruling he must "consider his position." "Very well," said the President, 
 abruptly. After an awkw^ard pause, Sir Richard Webster put a question to Mr. 
 Houston, who was still standing in the witness-box. Was there any truth in 
 what Islx. Davitt said yesterday about Mr. Houston's connection with the 
 dynamite hoax. "Not the slightest" was Mr. Houston's answer. "Have 
 you contributed articles to The Evening Nezvs and Post during the past 
 month?" asked Mr. Davitt, suddenly starting up. " I decline to answer." In 
 another minute Mr. Parnell with his black bag in one hand, and his overcoat 
 across his elbow, walked out of court. ]Mr. Davitt, putting up his papers, and 
 looking as if he meant good-bye, followed him. Lastly, and after a decorous 
 interval. Sir Charles Russell quietly disappeared. In a few minutes more, the 
 rumour was spread along the Strand that Sir Charles Russell and his client had 
 " withdrawn " from the case. 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [Jidy i6. 297 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 July 16. 
 
 To-day, long before half-past ten o'clock, the Court was densely crowded. 
 The " defendants " were in greater strength than almost at any time since the 
 beginning of the trial. But there was one conspicuous figure missing — Mr. 
 Davitt. Otherwise the Nationalists were well represented. Mr. T. D. Sullivan 
 and Mr. Biggar sat on the Solicitors' Bench, the latter smiling and nodding, 
 laughing, and generally conducting himself as if he expected some entertain- 
 ment on the appearance of their lordships. Mr. Sullivan, also, was in high 
 glee. Dr. Tanner, looking none the worse for his imprisonment, dressed with 
 scrupulous neatness, and wearing a shamrock in his button-hole, talked away 
 with Mr. O'Kelly, whose military appearance and bearing struck ever}'body. 
 The two Tipperary "boys," Mr. Condon and Mr. John O'Connor, sat together, 
 somewhat silently. They were still in captivity — putting up at Holloway 
 Gaol, when they were not attending court. But the London captivity of Irish 
 members brought from their Irish gaols to give evidence before the Commission 
 was not too severe, as was evident from Mr. William O'Brien's perplexity one 
 day as he strolled about the court " on the search for my keeper." Besides the 
 foregoing there were Dr. Fitzgerald, Mr. Haydon, Mr. P. J. O'Brien, Mr. 
 Byrne, ]\Ir. Justin Huntly M'Carthy, and last, though not least, Mr. Matt. 
 Harris, silent, in a " brown study," with his white hair, and wan, grey face 
 bearing traces of illness. 
 
 When Sir Charles Russell came in without Mr. Parnell, people jumped to the 
 conclusion that Mr. Parnell had definitely "withdrawn." When, in a minute 
 or two, ;Mr. Parnell did appear, they jumped to the conclusion that he had 
 " thought better of it." But there was Sir Charles Russell, putting their doubts 
 at rest, for the Judges had scarcely entered when Sir Charles was up and 
 addressing them. Speaking slowly, in a low voice and with every mark of 
 reverence, Sir Charles announced that, though the course he was about to take 
 had been resolved upon on Friday, he thought it more respectful to their lord- 
 ships to wait until this morning, Mr. Parnell's instructions to him were in 
 writing ; there could be "no mistaking their meaning," said Sir Charles ; they 
 were peremptory, and, to cut a very short address still shorter, "we" — Sir 
 Charles and Mr. Asquith — "no longer appear in this case." 
 
 The President, polite, precise, unmoved, leant slightly forward, as he 
 expressed regret for the loss of the learned counsel's assistance, and then he 
 added, just a little stiffly, that Mr. Parnell nevertheless remained "subject to the 
 jurisdiction of this Court." Sir Charles was about to say something when Mr. 
 Parnell quickly rose to his feet, whereupon Sir Charles Russell and Mr. Asquith, 
 gathering up their papers, left their seats, elbowed their way through the crowd, 
 and disappeared. ^Ir. Justice Smith's eyes twinkled ; he smiled. Mr. Justice 
 Day stared at the retreating figures, with a hard, stony stare expressive of intense 
 disapproval. The President's face was less easy to read. After the pause 
 caused by the withdrawal of Sir Charles Russell, Mr. Parnell began. He 
 reminded the Judges of the amount of evidence which he had given, and of the 
 time which he had spent in court since the " explosion " of the letters case. 
 He requested that their lordships should either release him from further atten- 
 dance or enable him this week to undergo the Attorney-General's deferred 
 cross-examination on certain cheque books. The Attorney-General promised 
 to do his best to oblige Mr. Parnell. 
 
 Even the spectators must have felt a certain awkwardness of the situation. 
 Q.C.'s, who are, perhaps, somewhat hardened persons, must have felt it. Mr. 
 Reid rose with the demeanour of a man performing a duty he would cheerfully 
 
298 Tuesday] Diary of IJ^i^y 16. 
 
 avoid. For he, too, had received his "instructions": he must withdraw. 
 But as for his cHent Mr. O'Kelly, he would appear for himself; "he will 
 give any information your lordships may desire." On this well-meant 
 assurance, Sir James Hannen struck in, coldly and with dignity, "You are in 
 the unfortunate position, Mr. Reid, of representing the witness while no longer 
 counsel." Mr. Reid sat down in silence. Then Mr. Lockwood rose up. Sir 
 Henry James had just asked " what about Mr. Matt. Harris? " and Mr. Lock- 
 wood wished to speak for Mr. Matt. Harris, and others. But Mr. Lockwood 
 spoke as if he diet not at all like the position he was in. He, too, Mr. Lock- 
 wood, had received his instructions. He, too, must withdraw. But ]SIr. 
 Harris and Dr. Tanner would appear for themselves. And then, as if to 
 encourage their lordships, "I may say, on behalf of all those for whom we 
 have appeared, they will treat with the utmost respect any summons from this 
 Court." This was very kind of Mr. Lockwood ; and the President followed 
 him up sharply, thus — "I have already observed that nothing is changed in 
 any respect except that we shall no longer have the assistance of counsel in the 
 case. In every other respect the position is as it was. They are bound to pre- 
 sent themselves before the Court if they have any information to give, just as it 
 was before." 
 
 When the President ceased speaking, there was a general movement on the 
 Nationalist benches. IMr. Reid rose. Next Mr. Lockwood. Then the 
 juniors. And away they went, — slowly making their way through the crowd, 
 — lawyers, ALP.'s, and all, and the tall figure of Mr. Parnell, with a top-coat 
 over the left arm, and a hand-bag in the right hand, bringing up the rear. A 
 quiet smile passed over his thin, refined features. Decorous, matter-of-fact, 
 brief as it was — it occupied no more than three minutes — this was one of the 
 most interesting scenes in Court since the opening of the Commission. After 
 the Nationalists left, with a multitude of spectators behind them, the Court 
 presented a singularly lop-sided appearance — the Nationalist halves of the 
 lawyers' benches being completely deserted, T/ie Times portion being full. 
 
 Another awkward pause. Mr. O'Kelly, Mr. Matt. Harris, Dr. Tanner, sat 
 on the Solicitors' Bench, stock still. They were ready to be examined, but who^ 
 was to do it? At last, Sir James Hannen mentioned Mr. O'Kelly's name. ]\Ir. 
 O'Kelly rose, and in his strong, hearty, frank voice expressed his readiness to 
 answer any questions which might be put to him. Sir James bowed. Mr. 
 O'Kelly strode to the witness-box, entered it, took the oath, and then sub- 
 mitted to the examination — that should have been a cross-examination — by Sir 
 Henry James. With his erect, stout figure, in close-fitting, buttoned-up frock 
 coat, his fierce moustache, keen, frank, steady grey eyes, prompt, downright 
 address — but respectful, withal, as of a man who respects himself — Mr. O'Kelly 
 looked every inch a soldier. He exactly realized the description given of him, 
 as soldier and journalist, in JNIr. T. P. O'Connor's graphic narratives. 
 
 Mr. O'Kelly was a first-rate witness. He gave the fullest and frankest details 
 of his membership of the Fenian Brotherhood up to the year 1879-80, when 
 he entered the National movement, since which he has had no intercourse 
 with the society. When in America he was a member of the Clan-na-Gael. In 
 America, in 1879, said Mr. O'Kelly, there was a general belief that Ireland was 
 about to be visited by a famine : in which case, the physical force party in 
 America had resolved upon fighting. And Mr. O'Kelly came over from America,, 
 to Ireland, ready to fight for the peasants against their landlords, in the event 
 of famine outbreak. He came, as he expressed it, to "organize" Ireland 
 for insurrection. All this, Mr. O'Kelly declared with the utmost frankness. 
 " Whatever you want to know about myself personally, I will tell you," and 
 Mr. OTvelly was keeping his word. He was equally frank in his account of 
 his career up to 1S70, nine years before his organizing mission to Ireland. In 
 that earlier period, he had, as a Fenian, been active in importing arms into 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [July i6. 299 
 
 Ireland. " There's no concealment about it," IsU. O'Kelly remarked, with a 
 laugh, turning his keen, grey eyes on Sir Henry James. Sir Henry was read- 
 ing long extracts from Fenian letters addressed to ^Slr. O'Kelly in his Fenian 
 daj^s, letters often in enigmatic language, which Mr. O'Kelly readily explained 
 to his cross-examiner. ]Mr. O'Kelly smiled, and smiled again, as these long- 
 forgotten letters reminded him of his times of old romance, of his hot, indis- 
 creetly patriotic youth. \\Tien he came to " organize " Ireland, for the purpose 
 above mentioned, Mr. O'Kelly brought American money with him. But it was 
 not "Skirmishing Fund Money," said Mr. O'Kelly ; that fund was Rossa's. 
 And when it appeared that there was to be no famine, and therefore no chance 
 of a peasant insurrection, Mr. O'Kelly returned the money to America. But 
 there was another reason why 'Mr. O'Kelly returned the money. The new- 
 leaders of the Irish people were going in for Parliamentary action ; and in 1 880 
 Mr. O'Kelly joined the Parnellites. "You say you supported ^Nlr. Parnell," 
 Sir Henrj' James remarked. Here is Mr. O'Kelly's reply : — 
 
 "Yes, I found that most people in Ireland were inclined to support him, and 
 that there was a strong impression and hope that they could obtain their objects 
 wdthout conspiracy or fighting. I rather sympathized with that view, and so 
 joined the League." 
 
 Mr. O'Kelly gave this answer with telling effect. It was meant as an 
 affirmation and endorsement of Mr. Parnell's great claim — and defence — that 
 the Parnell movement converted conspiracy into constitutionalism. 
 
 Mr. O'Kelly then left the box and Mr. Matt. Harris entered it. :\Ir. Harris 
 looked extremely weak. Yet, notwithstanding the President's kind request 
 that he should sit dowm, he preferred to stand. He gave his evidence with that 
 air of weary familiarity so often observable in the testimony of the Nationalist 
 witnesses — the weariness of men who, though themselves conscious of intimate 
 knowledge and thorough insight, yet seem to feel a despair of making other 
 people understand Ireland. Mr. Harris was as outspoken, in his own tired way, 
 as Mr. O'Kelly was. He had been a Fenian for fifteen years, from 1865. Egan 
 and Sheridan were Fenians like himself. And they imported arms ; and 
 almost every farmer in Ireland who could afford to buy a weapon possessed 
 one. He made no concealment whatever about the fact. Mr. Harris admitted, 
 in his frank way, that at first he did not care much for the Land League. _ It 
 embraced only 'a single class, the farming class, and its main object was social. 
 But ]Mr. Harris preferred an organization that was political and social. ^Vith 
 characteristic honesty, Mr. Harris confessed that he thought the farxiers a 
 rather " selfish " class — who would care little for national interests, if once their 
 own sectional interests were sufficiently provided for. In his simple, direct 
 way too, Mr. Harris defended secret societies — conditionally. Whether they 
 were good, or bad, was, said Mr. Harris, a question that depended on the 
 circumstances under which they existed, and on the manner in which they were 
 conducted. He admitted, with equal candour, that he sometimes had used 
 indiscreet language, as when he, once upon a time, wrote of jSIr. Davitt s 
 " caterwauling " about the Phcenix Park murders and his " canting about 
 cruelty to animals." He made ui^e of that language, said Mr. Harris, at a tirne 
 of bitter controversy with Mr. Davitt, and when he thought that ]vlr. Davitt 
 was raising a somewhat insincere clamour about both. " I said at the time, 
 that I hated murder and cruelty as much as he did." Still, as Mr. Harris 
 now admitted, such language was dangerous. 
 
300 Wednesday] Diary of [J^^^y i?- 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 July 17. 
 
 To-day Sir Henry James resumed his cross-examination of Mr. Matthew 
 Harris. He began with questions about the Land League books and accounts, 
 but Mr. Harris could tell him nothing. Any documents Mr. Harris may have 
 had he must have destroyed long ago. Nor did Sir Henry James elicit any 
 information of a compromising character from . acknowledged motives in 
 visiting America in 1883, and his occasional intercourse there with Mr. Egan 
 and ]Vlr. Ford. Mr. Harris explained that his chief inducement in visiting 
 America was to make some money by lecturing. Not only could Mr. 
 Harris not give Sir Henry James any information about the Leagiie books, 
 but he knew nobody who could. "Is there any reason," asked Sir Henry 
 James, "why Mr. J. P. Quinn should not appear as a witness?" Mr. Harris 
 knew not of any. Mr. Moloney was said to be the person in whose possession 
 the Land League books were last seen. Was there any reason why he should 
 not appear ? Mr. Harris knew of none, except that Mr. ]^Ioloney had private 
 and domestic troubles of his own. But there was Mr. Campbell, ^LP. , private 
 secretar}^ to Mr. Parnell. Mr. Campbell had been engaged in the removal of 
 the Land League books from Dublin. Why should not Mr. Campbell appear 
 as a witness ? "I don't know," was Mr. Harris's answer ; " he ought to have 
 some information on these subjects." Then Sir Henry James came to Mr. 
 Harris's speeches, reading from them several extracts. Mr. Harris defended 
 his strong language by saying that he spoke under the influence of strong 
 feeling ; that the objectionable expressions would not be taken literally by 
 those who heard them ; that exceptional means, strong language among them, 
 were required to arouse a peasantry so abjectly demoralized as the peasantry 
 of Ireland then were. In putting before the President a typical case, showing 
 the terrible provocations to which Irish tenants had at all times been subjected, 
 Mr. Harris nearly broke down, for he was describing an eviction effected two 
 days after his father's death on his father's farm. Upon this farm of his 
 father's, five hundred pounds had been spent in improvements. There was, 
 said Mr. Harris, a law higher than mere legality — rather than see his wife and 
 children turned out of the home which he himself had made for them he would 
 stand in its doorway, gun in hand, and "shoot down all the landlords in 
 Ireland, one after the other." 
 
 As ]Mr. Harris uttered these words, he drew himself up, his voice quivered 
 and his eyes flashed. Before he uttered them, he had just been explaining 
 his famous "partridge speech." When he said he would under certain 
 circumstances shoot down landlords like partridges in September, he was, 
 he said, speaking only in a figurative sense, as people sometimes do when 
 they say a man ought to be hanged ; and when he did use the words, he 
 had in his mind's eye scenes such as those in which he and his family had 
 been the victims. Strong language was, he held, naturally provoked by the 
 circumstances. His feelings overcame him when he advised combination 
 against a certain " man-eating tiger " of a landlord. And if all said about Mrs. 
 Blake of Connemara was true, he would not hesitate to call her a "she devil." 
 
 In some respects Mr. Harris's evidence was more impressive than any that 
 had preceded it. Mr. Harris is — as all who know him are aware — a man of 
 gentle nature, honest, sincere ; a man who hates violence and cruelty as much 
 as any man in Ireland. This only rendered his intemperate utterances all the 
 more noteworthy. Sir James Hannen appeared, somehow, to be more impressed 
 by him — touched by him, one might venture to say — than by almost any other 
 witness. Sir James bent forward, listening to him most attentively, as he 
 told the story — breaking down in the recital — of the old eviction. 
 
Thursday'] the Pavnell Coininission. [July i8. 301 
 
 Next came the first lady witness on the side of the defence. The lady was 
 Mrs. Delahunt, formerly Mrs. Kenny, whom Sir Richard Webster had, in his 
 speech, called by her maiden name. For having taken this liberty with her 
 name, Mrs. Delahunt administered a severe rebuke to Mr. Attorney. Mr. 
 Attorney had made a dreadful charge against Mrs. Delahunt — "outrage had 
 followed in her footstep?." " It was I," exclaimed Mrs. Delahunt pointedly, 
 " that followed in the footsteps of outrage " — meaning, apparently, that her 
 mission was to repair the damage done by landlord selfishness, particularly 
 the evictions, which she described as the worst kind of crime in Ireland, as 
 "legalized murder 1" Now that Mrs. Delahunt and j\Ir. Attorney were face 
 to face, would Mr. Attorney be good enough to substantiate his accusation ? 
 Accordingly Sir Richard Webster asked ISIrs. Delahunt if she approved of 
 certain speeches made in her hearing by members of the Ladies' Land League 
 — of such expressions, for example, as " Warning the wavering." Mrs. Dela- 
 hunt replied, generally, " that the Ladies' Land League never threatened any- 
 body." The Attorney-General made much of the fact that ]\Irs. Delahunt 
 was imprisoned three weeks for her League work in Southern Ireland ; and of 
 the story that the windows of the police district-inspector were smashed the 
 night after INIrs. Delahunt was sentenced. Sir Richard Webster questioned 
 Mrs. Delahunt about crime statistics in Kerry before and after her visit to the 
 county, but she could give him no information, could not tell hi:n whether his 
 figures were right or wrong. 
 
 Mrs. Delahunt visited America four or five years ago ; and in New York 
 she was introduced to Mr. Patrick Ford ; but she refused, without permission, 
 to say by whom. Of the accounts of the Ladies' Land League Mrs. Delahunt 
 knew absolutely nothing — "Probably in the waste-paper basket," remarked 
 Mrs. Delahunt, with a glance of scorn which, one fears, was thrown away upon 
 the Attorney-General. " Where's the waste-paper basket ? " was the problem 
 which seemed to fill Mr. Attorney's first and best thoughts, to the exclusion of 
 all other considerations. If glances of lady's scorn could have upset any man's 
 equanimity, the Attorney-General ought to have been in a complete state of 
 demoralization, long before Mrs. Delahunt left the witness-box. But Sir 
 Richard Webster can stand a good deal. 
 
 When Mr. Attorney was done with the witness, or the witness was done 
 with Mr. Attorney — whichever it was — Sir James Hannen called upon Dr. 
 Tanner. The renowned doctor, tastefully dressed, wearing a shamrock in his 
 buttonhole, smiling sunnily, and looking all the better for his gaol life since 
 May last, entered the box. " Happy to give you any information I have " — 
 and in a moment Dr. Tanner was on the topic of boycotting. The Cork 
 "classes " boycotted Dr. Tanner, ruined his practice as soon as he became a 
 Nationalist politician. If the classes boycotted, why not the masses ? ^^^lat's 
 sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, was the doctrine Dr. Tanner 
 preached from public platforms. All this, and a great deal more, Dr. Tanner 
 detailed with perfect urbanity and the utmost good humour. But about 
 "grabbers," quoth Mr. Murphy. Had he called them "vultures," "noisome 
 beasts," and other picturesque names ? Dr. Tanner would not answer for the 
 exact expressions; but, said he, with another of his^ polite bows, "I have 
 denounced grabbers to the best of my ability." 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND NINTH DAY. 
 
 July i8. 
 
 Mr. M. Harris returned for a few moments to the witness-box, in order to 
 
302 Tuesday} Diary of [J^^^y -3* 
 
 make a statement in reference to the I\,lj£ssrs. Egan and Brennan severance 
 of their connection with the Fenian organization. Mr. Harris's active con- 
 nection ceased in 1880. The withdrawal of Mr. Egan and Brennan, preceded 
 that of Mr. Harris, and was owing to the same cause — their decision to join 
 the open movement. 
 
 Dr. Tanner then appeared, and his cross-examination was resumed by Mr. 
 Murphy. The subject of it was Dr. Tanner's public oratory. "Did you," 
 jNIr. Murphy asked, "ever advise the people to boycott every man, woman, and 
 child who did not support the League?" Dr. Tanner denied that he had ever 
 said any such thing. "I hope I had too much common sense to talk of 
 boycotting children," he added. He must have been inaccurately reported, 
 Dr. Tanner thought. Nor had he any recollection of having in his speech 
 compared the evictor to a hawk or a carrion crow, and the grabber to a vulture 
 feeding upon dead carrion. All that Dr. Tanner w^ould say was that he 
 advocated boycotting to the best of his ability. Ele did recollect having called 
 Mr. Hegarty, of Mill-street, a "creeping louse: " the hostility between him 
 and Mr. Hegarty had reference to electioneering business, and not to agrarian 
 disputes. 
 
 But in spite of the strong denunciations of evictors and grabbers, Dr. Tanner 
 had always condemned outrage. From his place in the witness-box he 
 challenged Mr. Murphy to produce a single instance of outrage following, as 
 an effect, from any one of his speeches. ]Mr. Murphy suggested such a con- 
 nection between a speech in which Dr. Tanner advised the young women of 
 Ireland to avoid the police, and the tar-capping of a ]Miss JNIurphy — on the 
 alleged ground that she had spoken to a constable. "I condemned that 
 outrage as a most infamous thing," Dr. Tanner said, alluding generally to 
 public speeches in which he had done so. 
 
 Like so many others among the principal witnesses on the Irish side, Dr. 
 Tanner frankly acknowledged that in the event of the failure of the Consti- 
 tutional movement, he would gladly try the alternative of physical force. 
 When ;Mr. Murphy sat down. Dr. Tanner proceeded to read from his own 
 speeches some extracts in proof of his statement that he had ahvays condemned 
 intimidation and outrage. The reading lasted only a few minutes. 
 
 There was a pause when Dr. Tanner left the watness-box. "We have 
 exhausted the list of witnesses," said the President, looking at Mr. Lewis, who 
 then rose to say that so far as he was aware there were no more to be called. 
 This was at a quarter to twelve. Nine months from the beginning of the trial, 
 Dr. Tanner closed the list of witnesses for the accused. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TENTH DAY. 
 
 July 23. 
 
 Yesterday the court was crowded, in anticipation of J\Ir. Parnell's reappear- 
 ance in the witness-box. The proceedings began by Mr. Parnell's correcting 
 a former impression of Sir Henry James's that certain letters of Mr. Parnell's 
 had not been disclosed to T/ie Times counsel until Mr. M. Harris produced 
 them the other day in court. Having frankly and politely admitted his error, 
 Sir Henry James addressed himself to the reading of a number of letters and 
 documents handed in by Mr. Harris. One of these was a letter from Mr. 
 Harris to " the Irish patriot, Kickham." Enough to say of this letter that its 
 sentiments and ideas were just the same as those to which Mr. Harris had 
 already given expression in his straightforward and impressive evidence in the 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission, [July 23. 303 
 
 witness-box. As to the second production, one may venture to say that the 
 reading thereof did credit to Sir Henry James, and that the writing thereof 
 said much for Mr. M. Harris's religio-poetic temperament. Putting its mere 
 politics aside for the moment, this interesting production really showed Mr. JNI. 
 Harris in a new and pleasant light. It was Mr. Harris's funeral oration on 
 John O'Mohoney, a Fenian of the olden time, for whose self-sacrificing 
 character Mr. Harris felt a warm admiration. This oration was never spoken. 
 It was only written. The "peelers" seized it, and by a whimsical kind of 
 poetic justice its delivery was reserved for Probate Court No. i and the 
 •elocutionary powers of Sir Henry James. And Sir Henry, resting his left 
 elbow on the ledge behind him, read the funeral oration most feelingly. 
 
 Then Mr. Parnell, looking even more pale and worn-out than usual, went 
 into the witness-box. As to the question which had just been raised by Sir 
 Richard Webster, Mr. Parnell remarked that Mr. Lewis had long ago been 
 instructed to subpoena jMr. Moloney, the only person in this country, besides 
 the Parliamentary members, who was likely to know anything at all about the 
 missing accounts. Then the Attorney-General plunged into the interminable 
 topic of League money ; and he went to his work in his old and too un- 
 pleasantly aggressive manner. However, he refrained from the finger -shaking, 
 loud style of his earlier cross-examination. He wanted to know who were the 
 trustees of the League funds kept eight years ago (and still kept) in Paris. !Mr. 
 Parnell said they were, besides himself, Mr. Justin McCarthy, and -Sir. Biggar. 
 The Attorney-General appeared to think it a suspicious circumstance that Mr. 
 Parnell did not on the instant mention Mr. Egan's name. Of course Mr. 
 Egan was a trustee; "and he may be so still for all I know," added Mr. 
 Parnell. Even on that point Mr. Parnell was not in a position to give any 
 precise information. As Mr. Parnell observed at a later stage of his cross- 
 examination, Mr. Egan was at present American Minister to Chili. Nor 
 could ^Ir. Parnell tell the Attorney-General the amount of the Paris bonds 
 of which he and Mr. Egan and the others were co-trustees. Mr. Parnell could 
 not even tell within ten thousand pounds. 
 
 "But" — and here the Attorney-General lowered his voice to a pitch ex- 
 pressive of profound surprise — "but, Mr. Parnell, you are a man of business." 
 
 " I am not," quoth Mr. Parnell, " and never was." Mr. Parnell made this 
 candid confession about himself with an air, half of resignation, half of bore- 
 dom, which much amused his hearers. He made them laugh again in his 
 reply to ^Ir. Attorney's question whether he had taken any steps to find out 
 the Ladies' Land League books. " Not the slightest, and I don't intend to." 
 As to the missing books of the Land League, Mr. Parnell now expressed his 
 opinion that the earlier books, or some of them, might be in Mr. Egan's posses- 
 sion ; that is, that Mr. Egan might have taken them with him in February, 
 1 88 1, when — in consequence of INIr. Forster's Coercion x\ct — he left Dublin for 
 Paris ; and that he might have carried them with him from Paris to America. 
 
 Why had not Mr. Parnell suggested that explanation long ago ? Over this 
 point Sir R. Webster laboured for a considerable time. ^Ir. Parnell replied 
 that the explanation was suggested to him by his reading of the evidence of the 
 financial expert whom the Attorney-General's side had appointed to examine 
 the books that had been submitted to the Court. " Last night," said Mr. 
 Parnell, "I came Ifinally to the conclusion that the books must be in Mr. 
 Egan's possession ; " and here he produced two papers that had been drawn 
 up for him on the subject by Mr. T. Harrington, and which appeared to him to 
 settle the point. The papers were passed up to the Judges. 
 
 And now the Attorney-General perhaps thought that Mr. Parnell had 
 seriously commited himself. He produced a balance-sheet from Ish. Egan in 
 Paris, and Mr. Egan's accompanying letter saying that the accounts were 
 incomplete because certain books were in Dublin. "Let me see that letter," 
 
304 Wednesday] Diary of [J^dy 24. 
 
 said Mr. Parnell. Mr. Attorney would rather not ; he would read it. But Mr. 
 Parnell must see it. And he did see it. " As I thought it would," remarked 
 Mr. Parnell, quietly, " the sentence about the books being in Dublin refers tO' 
 the books of the Relief Fund, which I never suggested had been taken to Paris 
 by Mr. Egan, The point could be settled, the President observed, by the pro- 
 duction of the balance-sheet. Mr. Parnell had not the balance-sheet. It was 
 "whisked off by a reporter, at the time," and "I have not seen it since." 
 But the balance-sheet could be seen in the Dublin papers. The Attorney- 
 General belaboured Mr. Parnell with questions as to whether he had written 
 to Mr. Egan about the missing books, or tried to get Mr. Henry Labouchere's 
 help, or to arouse ]Mr. George Lewis's zeal. But Mr. Parnell had only 
 arrived at his conclusion "last night," and Mr. Egan was in ChiH, and Mr. 
 Lewis was scarcely an " expert " in Irish politics ; while as for Mr. Labouchere, 
 "his interest in the Commission ceased when the forgeries were shown up." 
 
 Mr. Parnell's cross-examination ended with a series of questions about the 
 sustenance fund, raised for the benefit of the imprisoned suspects and their 
 famihes in 1881-1882. The Attorney-General's purpose was to find out if 
 Leaguers only received allowances, and if Invincibles had their share. Mr. 
 Parnell explained that all prisoners put in under the Act received the benefit of 
 the fund, whether they were Leaguers or non-Leaguers ; there was no mystery 
 about it, for the Ladies' Land League cheques were sent to the governors of 
 gaols, who saw after the distribution of the money ; even Mr. Parnell himself 
 had his allowance, at first fifteen shillings a week, and next a pound. The 
 spectators laughed at this little revelation of prison life. Sometimes, said Mr, 
 Parnell, a prisoner preferred to take the ordinary prison fare, in which case his 
 share of the money would be sent to his family. 
 
 About a quarter-past one o'clock the Attorney-General put his last question 
 — When did the first remittances come from America ? This was Mr. 
 Parnell's reply — "The great stimulus to the American paj-ments came in 18S5, 
 when we helped Lord Salisburj^ to turn out Mr. Gladstone's Government." 
 The Attorney General sat down. 
 
 And now there followed a brief and most interesting little scene. The 
 President, leaning forward, asked ISIr. Parnell if he would authorize ^lessrs. 
 ISIonro, the Paris bankers, to submit the League funds and accounts in their 
 keeping to inspection. "No " ; Mr. Parnell spoke in a low, deliberate voice, 
 " neither friend nor foe " should become aware of the resources at the disposal 
 of the League. Only a few days before there was another little scene, not 
 unlike this one: Houston's refusal (on the part of the I.L.P.U.) to show books 
 that would disclose " to our political opponents " the secrets of the Union. 
 "Very well," said Sir James Plannen, after Mr. Parnell had given his quiet, 
 resolute, but respectful answer, "you will use your own discretion." 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND ELEVENTH DAY. 
 
 July 24. 
 
 At last the long expected Mr. Moloney appeared in the witness-box. Those 
 w^ho expected from ]\Ir. Moloney some interesting revelations about the 
 missing documents of the Land Leagu must have been disappointed. Mr. 
 Moloney said he knew absolutely nothing of any League books save the four 
 already before the Court. Mr. ISIoloney had had only the slightest connection 
 with the official work of the Land League. In fact he did not become an 
 officer of the League until October, 1881, the month of the suppression, when 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [July 24. 305 
 
 the League had been two years in existence. When the League was sup- 
 pressed, the office furniture of the Central Branch and a quantity of "No 
 Rent " manifestoes — but no other books or documents whatever — were re- 
 moved to Mr. Moloney's house. The four books now before the Commission 
 were, he repeated, all the Land League books he had ever had in his posses- 
 sion. And he corrected a mistake which Mr. Parnell made in his cross- 
 examination the day before. In 1 882, Mr. Moloney, having after his bank- 
 ruptcy left Ireland, gave orders for the destruction of all League books and 
 documents found in his house. That was Mr. Parnell's statement. But Mr. 
 Moloney said that Mr. Parnell must have been misinformed. He had given 
 no such orders. 
 
 " Is it not a fact," asked Sir Henry James, " that on the suppression of the 
 League Mrs. Moloney went to the houses of different clerks and collected 
 various books and documents?" "I don't believe she ever did," was Mr. 
 Moloney's answer. Questioned by Mr. Sexton, Mr. Moloney said that in 
 compliance with his subpoena by T/ie Times he had attended the court 
 regularly for six months ; that the Attorney-General might have called upon 
 him at any time ; that at any time during those six months he was ready to 
 produce his four books, if only he had been asked for them ; and that Mr. 
 Soanies had not yet paid him his expenses. "Do you believe," Mr. Sexton 
 asked, " that any of the money that passed through your hands was ever used 
 for any but a legitimate purpose?" " So far as I know, it was not." "Or 
 was any money ever paid by you out of League funds for the commission of or 
 as a reward to those who had committed crime?" "No; it was not. I 
 should never sanction such a proceeding." 
 
 When Mr. Moloney left the witness-box, Mr. Miller, manager of the 
 Charing Cross branch of the National Bank, re-entered it. On the preceding 
 day he had stated that a large quantity of bank papers and documents, 
 including some of the League's, were burnt in the early part of the present 
 year, and that it was the custom of the bank so to dispose, at stated periods, 
 of such portions of their accumulated material as it was unnecessary to 
 preserve. 
 
 Here Mr. Biggar got up. He reminded Mr. Miller of the existence of 
 a rumour that the destruction of the bank documents in January last had been 
 instigated by the " parties charged." Was there any truth in it? "Not the 
 least shadow of a foundation. " Then Mr. Tyrrell, one of the bank assistants, 
 was called. And Mr. Tyrrell said that he received in December last his in- 
 structions to destroy the surplus documents. He also stated that he had 
 received particular instructions not to destroy anything likely to be required 
 for the purposes of the Commission. " You do not seem," Sir James Hannen 
 quietly remarked, "you do not seem to have observed the caution given to 
 you." This observation of the President's was caused by Mr. Tyrrell's explana- 
 tion that he had destroyed nothing of later date than the year 1886. Then 
 came Phillips, the ex-Land League clerk, who had supplied T/ie Times with 
 some of its documentary evidence. The President asked what Phillips was 
 called for. The Attorney-General replied that he was called in order to 
 disprove Sir Charles Russell's assertion that Phillips had stolen some of the 
 League books, and to show that there were other books at the League offices 
 besides those produced in court. 
 
 Phillips had been employed by an accountants' firm in Dublin for five years 
 before October, 18S1, when Mr. Arthur O'Connor got him to take the League 
 books in hand. He said that on the suppression of the League, Moloney gave 
 him a list of documents which he was to receive from four League clerks, 
 named Farragher (the informer who has already appeared in court), Pearson, 
 Tighe, and O'Donoghue. This list he recovered a short time ago. Phillips 
 was imprisoned as a suspect at the end of November, 1881. At the time of 
 
3o6 Thursday] Diary of [J^'b' 25. 
 
 his arrest he had a considerable number of documents in his house, but most of 
 them escaped the eyes of the detective who called to search for them. 
 Replying to Mr. Sexton, he said that no one connected with the League had 
 ever suggested to him to destroy any of these papers. 
 
 Mrs.^ Phillips appeared after her husband. She said that the League 
 documents just mentioned by him were taken away by Mrs. Moloney and 
 two other visitors. "They took away two large sackfuls." "I helped to 
 pack them up," she added, "and I have not seen them since."' The last 
 witness of the day was Mr. Hardcastle, who gave a long account of the results 
 of his examination of the four books. According to his statement, a sum of 
 upwards of ninety-three thousand pounds remained unaccounted for. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWELFTH DAY. 
 
 July 25. 
 
 Most of to-day's sitting — which lasted only an hour and a half — was occupied 
 by ]Mr. Hardcastle's disquisition on book-keeping. The details would be 
 wholly uninteresting to the public. Enough to say that Mr. Hardcastle was 
 quite satisfied with the fulness of the National League accounts to which he 
 had free access ; and that, when he spoke of sums " unaccounted" for in the 
 Land League books, he meant that certain entries were missing. In other 
 words, by "unaccounted " he did not necessarily mean " misappropriated." 
 
 Much more interesting than the book-keeping details was the statement of 
 the results of the examination of Mr. Parnell's correspondence. This exami- 
 nation of a correspondence, extending over many years, was conducted by 
 Mr. Campbell, M.P., Mr. Arthur O'Connor, M.P., I\Ir. Graham, and Mr. 
 Asquith — not Sir Charles Russell's junior, but Mr. Asquith of T/ie Thnes side. 
 These four gentlemen had examined between three and four thousand letters 
 of Mr. Parnell's. There were nearly eleven hundred letters belonging to the 
 year 1884, but of that large number only forty-two were put aside as having 
 some connection, more or less remote, with the League. The great bulk of 
 the correspondence was trivial in the highest degree, consisting of small bills, 
 requests for autographs and photographs, begging letters, &c. 
 
 Then the Attorney-General came to documents of another sort. He " put 
 in " an exhaustive — and exhausting — statistical statement of agrarian crime 
 before and after the great year 1879. The mass of material now before the 
 Judges must be terrific. The Attorney-General having " put in " his statistics, 
 *Mr. Sexton rose, and in the gentlest, most suave manner, remarked that his 
 Parliamentary experience had taught him how such Tvlinisterial figures were 
 used to damage the National cause. 
 
 Then Mr. Sexton, who, by the way, has proved himself an excellent cross- 
 examiner, put Mr. Soames into the witness-box. Mr. Soames once more ! 
 Would Mr. Soames now fulfil his promise and say how much money The 
 Times had spent in paying witnesses. Mr. Soames made no such promise, 
 said the Attorney-General. He did, retorted ]\Ir. Biggar. Mr. Soames pro- 
 tested, mildly, against making any statement of the kind, unless he was allowed 
 to give explanations. Without such explanation people might wonder why so 
 much was expended upon the witness Leavy, for example. At first Leavy was 
 paid very little ; but as soon as Mr. Soames learned that Leavy's life " was 
 threatened," The Times had to provide liberally for him. Mr. Soames could 
 not tell even within ten thousand pounds how much he had spent upon his 
 witnesses. 
 
Thursday] the Pavnell Cominission. [Oct. 24. 307 
 
 " In the ordinary course of events," said the President when Mr. Soames 
 left the box, " the persons charged would sum up. Do you desire to address 
 the Court, Mr. Sexton?" Mr. Sexton replied that neither he nor his colleagues 
 had had any idea that the case " would reach this stage to-day." He would 
 like to have an opportunity of consulting with them. 
 
 Sir Henry James spoke next. He said the Attorney-General had re- 
 quested him to reply on behalf of The Times. He now applied to their 
 Lordships for an adjournment until after the long vacation. In that case, 
 observed Mr. Sexton, I and those with whom I act will of course be allowed 
 to reserve our right of summing up our evidence. The President having 
 granted Sir Henry James's request, and intimated that additional evidence 
 might be admitted on special application to the Judges, the Court adjourned 
 ■until the 24th of October. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTEENTH DAY. 
 
 October 24. 
 
 This morning, one year and two days after its opening, the Commission 
 jresumed its inquiry. The number of visitors was much larger than during the 
 days immediately preceding the rising of the Court for the long vacation. The 
 reason was that Sir Henry James was expected to begin his reply —a perform- 
 ance which in all probability will prove more attractive than Sir Richard 
 Webster's opening address. But in the place of Sir Henry James we had Mr. 
 Biggar. He rose from his corner on the solicitors' bench at twenty minutes to 
 eleven, and he finished his speech in a quarter of an hour. He began with a 
 sharp attack on the Attorney- General, who sat in his usual place beside Sir 
 Henry James. Mr. Biggar thought that Sir Richard Webster in his rambling 
 case had confused a simple issue as successfully as any prosecuting lawyer in 
 Ireland could have done. He complimented Sir Richard on the feat, as a feat. 
 Mr. Biggar also expressed some not unnatural satisfaction at the heavy costs 
 which Sir Richard and Mr, Soames had heaped upon The Times. Then he 
 wagged his finger at Sir Richard, and wanted to know why Sir Richard 
 Webster had not apologised to those of the accused sixty-four against whom 
 no evidence whatever was even attempted to be brought in the course of the 
 trial. He finished off with some candid remarks on land agents and landlords. 
 Land agent Leonard, said ]\Ir. Biggar, was honest, though harsh. Mr. Leonard 
 had admitted that in the League year the peasants were "blue with hunger," 
 and that they hated the grabber. But the other agents and landlords, said 
 Mr. Biggar, contradicted all that ; they drew their picture of Arcadia. They 
 " swore it in the most unblushing manner ; " the whole gang of them " com- 
 mitted wilful and deliberate perjuiy," " Under these circumstances," said 
 Mr. Biggar, " I think the Commission ought to report that no evidence of a 
 substantial nature has been brought against me and the other defendants." 
 Mr. Biggar's wrath was aroused. He did not argue the point. He was angry. 
 He would waste no words. He said what he had to say, and then sat down. 
 If a speech of the Attorney-General's is the longest line between two points, 
 Mr. Biggar's is the shortest. 
 
 Then Mr. Davitt rose up. His written speech lay before him on a despatch 
 box. He began by saying that he appeared that day, as he had done all 
 along, on his own behalf alone. Possibly, too, in appearing at that stage of 
 the inquiry, he might " run counter" to the Irish opinion which had endorsed 
 the withdrawal of Mr. Parnell and his colleagues. "But," said he, "I feel 
 
3o8 Thursday] Diary of [Oct. 24. 
 
 imjDelled by a sense of loyalty to the cardinal principles of truth and justice, to 
 stand here and defend, as well as I can, the name and character and cause of 
 the peasantry of Ireland." Further on, in his speech, he remarked that his 
 task was the "heaviest ever undertaken by a layman in a court of justice." 
 But if so. My. Davitt is of all men the most competent. For the Land 
 League, upon which their lordships are sitting in judgment, is the offspring of 
 the thoughts which, as Mr. Davitt expressed it, "lightened the burden of my 
 penal servitude. " The whole passage is worth quoting. Here it is : — 
 
 The Land League, which is here on its trial, is largely, if not entirely, the offspring of 
 thoughts and resolutions which whiled away many a dreary and tedious hour in political 
 captivity, which lightened the burden of mj- penal servitude, and brought solace to me to 
 some extent for the loss of liberty, of home, and of friends. The idea of the Land League 
 recalls more than even this to justify my present position before your Lordships. The 
 conception of some such movement did more than give to my thoughts a congenial occupation 
 while in the companionship of the thieves of Dartmoor Prison. It represented the triumph 
 of what was forgiving over what was revengeful in my Celtic temperament. There is in every 
 man, whether Celt or Saxon, a living, constant combat between what is good and what is 
 in its nature evil, and when a man found himself in prison at the age of twenty-two, bereft of 
 eveiything that endeared him to life, and surrounded by every condition of existence that 
 could excite and keep alive passion and resentment, it was a hard and unequal struggle to 
 conquer the spirit of hate and revenge. 
 
 Mr. Davitt then proceeded to say that he believed as firmly, in Dartmoor 
 prison, as on the last of the hundreds of platfornis from which he had spoken, 
 that a movement such as the Land League would secure justice for Ireland,., 
 and put an end to the animosities between the two countries. It was said 
 that crime had accompanied the League, added Mr. Davitt ; but it was only 
 the crime inevitably associated with all popular movements against injustice, 
 crime arising as naturally as fruit from seed. " I don't indict nature," he 
 continued ; ' ' but I repudiate T/ie Times charges, that are repugnant to my 
 nature, and to the Irish race as to any race on earth." In bringing these 
 charges against the Irish leaders, said Mr. Davitt, the prosecution overlooked 
 all the natural " incentives to disorder ; " all the social and political conditions 
 whence the disorder sprang. His defence was that the Land League was a 
 dona fide constitutional organization, that its work had been and still was 
 beneficial ; and he would show that the crimes were attributable to the system 
 which the League tried to overthrow. But as to the charges against himself 
 personally, what were they ? He was charged with being a Fenian convict. 
 Well, he had been a Fenian, like most of the young men of Ireland in the 1867 
 to 1879 period, and he declared that, under the circumstances of twenty years 
 ago, he would become a Fenian again. But why were they Fenians ? Because 
 Fenianism, in the days when no open political combination existed, was a 
 necessity of the situation, a natural and inev-itable social growth. To put it 
 another way, Fenianism was simply one of the many Irish movements, justified 
 by their fruits in Imperial legislation. All these risings, said Mr. Davitt, were 
 "justified by subsequent reforms " ; as the dangerous agitation subsequent to 
 1810 was justified by Catholic Emancipation. He described Fenianism in yet 
 another way as the offspring of the '48 movement, which itself was arrested 
 by the great famine. Then he quoted Lord John Russell, Mr. Goldwin Smith, 
 Lord Derby, who lamented the fate under which Ireland never received justice 
 except as a concession to illegal agitation. "This," said Mr. Davitt, " is my 
 justification for my connection with Fenianism." Then followed an extremely 
 effective and dexterous passage, in which Mr. Davitt reminded the Court that 
 he had learned his lessons in political liberty, not in Ireland, but in England, 
 where he had spent two-thirds of his life. He asked whether the sympathy 
 which free England extended to Italy, to the oppressed all over the world, was 
 to be withheld from the Ireland so close to her own shores ? 
 
 Mr. Davitt next came to Delaney's evidence. Delaney had accused him of 
 
Thursday] the Pavnell Commission. 'Oct. 24. 309 
 
 having attended, in 1878, amnesty meetings which were in reality Fenian 
 meetings ; of having associated with Curley, who was hanged for the Phoenix 
 Park murders ; and of having helped Fenians to attack a Land League 
 meeting in Dublin, in April, 1880. All these statements, Mr. Davitt, repeating 
 his former sworn testimony, described as the " deliberate perjury of an 
 informer," who has recently asked the Government for the reward of his 
 serWces in giving evidence. ]\Ir. Davitt showed, from the newspaper reports 
 of the time, and from mass petitions to the Queen, that the amnesty movement 
 was public, and not merely sectional and Fenian. As for the secret Fenian 
 meeting which he was alleged to have attended just before the Rotunda 
 meeting, Mr. Davitt repeated his former testimony that he had never even 
 heard of such a meeting until the informer and ex-Invincible Delaney spoke of 
 it in the witness-box. 
 
 Then Mr. Davitt came to the story of the Forrester letter. It will be 
 remembered that the letter written by Mr. Davitt and found upon young 
 Forrester, was the " evidence " which decided ]Mr. Davitt's fate at the Old 
 Bailey trial ; and that Mr. Davitt, rather than become an informer, by 
 divulging the circumstances under which the letter was written, accepted the 
 bitter alternative of penal servitude for fifteen years. It will also be remem- 
 bered that, when in the witness-box, Mr. Davitt solemnly declared to their 
 lordships that the Forrester letter, instead of prompting murder, had the effect 
 which he meant it to have — the prevention of murder. He repeated the 
 statement now. And then came an impressive passage, delivered with 
 touching earnestness. It was as follows : — 
 
 I have done what I have never done before in the course of a chequered and somewhat 
 unfortunate existence — I have made an appeal to a man in a personal matter. I have appealed 
 from that witness-box to the man who was alone responsible for the guilt which that letter frus- 
 trated, the man who would have stood in my place in the Old Bailey dock nineteen years ago if 
 I had not kept silence through feelings of delicacy and honour. I have asked that man from 
 his safe asj^lum in America to release me from the silence which I considered that moral obli- 
 gations imposed upon me, but I have appealed in vain, and the man has not had the courage 
 to confess that nineteen years ago he had been saved bjr me from staining his hands with the 
 blood of an innocent comrade. In the Liverpool Courier of January 7, iSjo, there is a report 
 of the proceedings before the stipendiary^ magistrate, ^Mr. ^lansfield, on the occasion when 
 Forrester, upon whom the letter was found, was admitted to bail. During those proceedings, 
 as will be seen from the report, not even an allusion was made to the letter found upon 
 Forrester, although it had, of course, attracted the attention of the magistrate when the 
 accused was previously bound over. If the police in Liverpool had any real suspicion that 
 the letter was the expression of a design to take human life, it is not conceivable that they 
 would ev^er have acted as they did at the time. Long before " Parnellism and Crime '' was 
 written, this unhappy incident was quoted against me in The Times, and the people of these 
 countries were made to believe that I had deliberately, when in the Fenian organization, 
 written a letter encouraging or authorizing the assassination of an individual. I wish to 
 assert that there is nothing more foreign to my nature than the idea of assassination. It is as 
 repugnant to me as it is to the whole of the Irish race throughout the world, and I will repeat 
 what I said in the witness-box under all the solemnity of an oath, that that letter, boyish and 
 foolish as it might be in its terms, was in realitj^ written to prevent a lad of seventeen from 
 carrying out a wicked plot against an associate. No harm was ever done to any human being 
 in consequence of that letter ; no man was ever injured through it ; and yet because of it I 
 have been held up to the world as the accomplice of assassins. 
 
 Then he turned to the American part of his story. " All ancient history," 
 some may call it. But it is unfortunately too new to the vast majority of 
 people in this country. Besides, some of it was a striking answer to the 
 allegation of the prosecution, that the Land League funds came from the 
 Clan-na-Gael. It will be interesting to see how Sir Henry James meets Mr. 
 Davitt's account of the sources of the Land League funds. 
 
 But in all that Mr. Davitt said to-day about the American share in the 
 agitation, he had one great object in view — to point out the influences that 
 aroused and kept fiercely alive the sentiment of Irish-American hatred of 
 England. What were the natural causes which, as he said, the prosecution 
 
310 Thursday] Diary of [Oct. 24.. 
 
 had from first to last ignored? He reminded the prosecution that the first 
 Anti-Enghsh Society ever formed by the Irish in America was " The Friendly 
 Sons of St. Patrick Society," Philadelphia, 1771. He told them that its 
 founders were evicted emigrants from Ulster. He told them that Irishmen 
 were as numerous as Englishmen in the War of Independence ; that twelve 
 of George Washington's generals were members of the St. Patrick Society, 
 and that among the signatories to rhe declaration of American independence 
 were nine Irishmen. "America was lost through the Irish emigrants," said 
 Mr. Davitt, quoting from the Irish Parliamentar}- debates of 1784. 
 
 What that migration was— the great migration which began with the famine 
 —Mr. Davitt illustrated by statistics of disease and death. He quoted from 
 medical journals and historical works of note, the frightful rates of mortality 
 among the emigrant ships of forty-two years. One example will show the 
 general character of the statistics given — of 1,476 passengers on board the 
 Virgiiiius. 276 died at sea. " Coffin ships," the emigrant vessels were called. 
 And from the American shore to Ontario and beyond, the path of the emigra- 
 tion was "an unbroken chain of graves." All this, Mr. Davitt continued, 
 explained the Anaerican-Irish hatred of England. And then Mr. Davitt told 
 the following story : — 
 
 I remember calling, in 1S78, upon the late General Sheridan, who died Commander-in-Chief 
 of the United States army. He was at that time commanding the division of the West, and 
 he had hisheadquarters in Chicago. I asked him, among others things, how many men of 
 Irish blood in the United States would, in the event of a \\3.r with Ensland, join the American 
 armj-. His answer was that inside of fortj'-eight hours after war had" been declared a million 
 men of Irish blood would leap to arms. And that was the distinguished soldier and citizen of 
 the American Republic Avho once declared that if he had been born in Ireland he would have 
 been a Fenian. 
 
 Among the numerous other illustrations which Mr. Davitt gave of the origin 
 of this hatred was the following, from the history of O'Donovan Rossa, the 
 founder of the Skirmishing Fund : — 
 
 If any one will inquire in the town of Skibbereen, in county Cork, what Rossa v.as thirtj^ 
 j-ears ago. he will learn that he was a genial, kind-hearted, and open-handed young man of 
 unblemished character and undoubted respectabilitj-. He had been an eye-witness of the 
 famine horrors. He joined the Fenian movement in after years, was tried for it. and sentenced 
 to penal servitude for life. He had told the storj- of his prison experience, and that %ioxy 
 related that on one occasion for twenty-eight days he was so manacled that he -was oblijed 
 to get down on his knees at meal-times and lap up his porridge like a dog. 
 
 Mr. Davitt ended this day's instalment of his speech with an account of the 
 sources of the Land League funds. "Not a particle of truth," said he, "is 
 there in the allegation that they came from the Clan-na-Gael for the purpose 
 of crime and outrage." The first subscription ever received was at the end of 
 1879; the subscribers described themselves as "friends of Ireland," who- 
 " wished to encourage and assist :\rr. Parnell and his friends in the work they 
 have undertaken, and to prove that we in America are not unmindful of their 
 exertions on behalf of the rack-rented people at home." :\Ir. Davitt said he 
 did not deny that_ hundreds of people subscribed because they were actuated 
 by revengeful feelings ; but he maintained, first, that the letter already quoted 
 was a fair indication of the general spiiit of the contributors, and Americans 
 of all nationalities — Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, as well as Irishmen — 
 contributed to the League funds. 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Oct. 25. 311 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FOURTEENTH DAY. 
 
 October 25. 
 
 Mr. Davitt is interesting his hearers. The more he says, the more certain 
 it seems that he is supplying Sir Henry James with fresh food for reflection. 
 It is hard to believe that the speech Sir Henry James will deliver will be the 
 same as that which he would have delivered had Mr. Davitt fulfilled the general 
 expectation that he would not speak at all. 
 
 The prosecuting counsel, who follow him closely, held for a minute or two 
 what looked like a council of war when at half-past one o'clock the Court rose 
 for the half-hour's interval. There was at least one famous visitor present — 
 Beach, the spy. Sitting in a corner, close to the doorway, he was repeatedly 
 exchanging nods and smiles with Houston. For a time Beach appeared to be 
 rather amused than otherwise at the hard things Mr. Davitt, in his downright 
 way, was saying about him ; but his face became rigid, and a scowl settled 
 upon it, when Mr. Davitt, turning sharply round and darting a glance at him, 
 suggested the possibility of Beach's being another Pigott. This was in 
 reference to the "U.B." secret circulars transmitted by Beach to the Home 
 Office, and all — as Mr. Davitt believed — in Beach's handwriting. 
 
 Mr. Davitt read the local resolutions and documents of various sorts from 
 societies and individual contributors, which showed how the American sup- 
 porters of the new Irish movement were actuated, not by political hatred, but 
 by sympathy with the rack-rented tenants, and how they regarded with 
 *' detestation" and "abhorrence" the Phoenix Park murders. In all that 
 quantity of evidence there was not, Mr. Davitt declared, the smallest justifica- 
 tion for the theor>' of the prosecution, that the American funds for the Irish 
 League were "stained with blood." The overwhelming majority, of the 
 contributors were, Mr. Davitt maintained, thoroughly in favour of the new 
 Irish constitutional movement, as opposed to the less conciliatory policy which 
 at that time was Patrick Ford's. This led Mr. Davitt into a description of 
 Mr. Ford's attitude towards Mr. Parnell's Parliamentary method. He showed 
 how Ford repudiated the notion that The Irish World was the organ of the 
 League ; how he did it as vigorously as Mr. Parnell himself ; how Mr. Ford 
 contemptuously characterised Mr. Parnell's reliance upon the Parliamentary 
 method as an " absurdity " ; how he called the Home Rule idea an " illusion," 
 and pointed to the suspension of the Irish members as another warning that 
 they must not expect justice at Westminster. 
 
 Mr. Davitt then came to the third charge against himself — that he had 
 associated with criminals in America, and that he had brought about an alliance 
 between the Clan-na-Gael and the open association in Ireland and America. 
 For " the first part of the accusation against me," said Mr. Davitt, " there is 
 no proof except Le Caron's statement that in 1878, at Chicago, he saw me 
 associating with Colonel Clingen, supposed to be a Clan-na-Gael member." 
 Not that Mr. Davitt meant to admit that meeting and talking with Clan-na-Gael 
 people was in itself condemnable. As he said in a later part of his address, he 
 would associate with the Clan-na-Gael, even as he had done before, in order, 
 if he could, to argue them into a better frame of mind. I had no authority, 
 said Mr. Davitt, from Mr. Parnell or anybody else, to found any alliance. As 
 for the second part of the accusation, Mr. Davitt said it was in contradiction 
 with some other statements of Beach's. Beach dated the origin of the alliance 
 from his alleged talk with Mr. Parnell in the House of Commons, but at that 
 time INIr. Davitt was, as he reminded the Court, in Portland prison. 
 
 In 1878 Mr. Davitt went to America on his own responsibility, and even 
 without the knowledge of Mr. Parnell. He had no introductions. Mr. James 
 O'Kelly, then on the staff of The New York Herald^ was the only man he called 
 
312 Friday] Diary of [Oct. 25. 
 
 upon when he landed at New York. He was the only person he knew. He 
 did not even know John Devoy, whom he then met. The only thing he knew 
 of him was the signature which Devoy had scratched on the door of Mr. 
 Davitt's cell in Millbank prison ; for, said i\Ir. Davitt, " he preceded me 
 along the dreary path of penal servitude." As to Devoy's " new departure " 
 (dynamite /-//^j- the open movement), which was the subject of Devoy's famous 
 telegram from America to Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt knew nothing at the time. 
 That telegram, addressed to Mr. Kickham, who was expected to lay it before 
 Mr. Parnell, was alleged to be the basis of the supposed alliance between 
 Parnellism and Dynamitism. But, in the first place, Mr. Davitt was at the 
 time a thousand miles from the place (New York) where the message was drawn 
 up ; in the second place, Mr. Kickham, being a consistent revolutionist, refused 
 to submit the proposal to Mr. Parnell, whose policy he disapproved of. Mr. 
 Parnell himself, said Mr. Davitt, never even received the proposals ; and Mr. 
 Davitt himself condemned them as soon as he heard of them. 
 
 Mr. Davitt's own " new departure " was something entirely different to that 
 of Mr. Beach's alleged revelations ; and it was set forth in the very first speech 
 which he delivered in America, the speech of which all his subsequent addresses 
 in the United States were more or less detailed reproductions. Self-govern- 
 ment for Ireland ; immediate improvement of the land system, leading to 
 peasant proprietorship on terms fair to the landlord ; encouragement of Irish 
 industries ; reform of popular education — that was Mr. Davitt's "new depar- 
 ture," and parts of it, he added, have already been adopted by the Imperial 
 Legislature. Was there dynamite in that programme ? Mr. Davitt exclaimed ; 
 his " new departure " was, he alleged, the first peaceful and constitutional pro- 
 gramme ever set before the American Irish. He invited the Irish race through- 
 out the New World to adopt it. He made no distinctions. " I would," he again 
 exclaimed, " attend to-morrow any meeting, however violent, and stand up for 
 common sense." And Mr. Davitt claimed that the " new departure " preached 
 by hirn, and organized by himself and Mr. Parnell, had won the overwhelming 
 majority of the Irish in America to constitutionalism, and to the policy of 
 federal union with England in place of separation. 
 
 Mr. Davitt rejected with contempt and scorn the allegation of the prosecu- 
 tion that the dynamite faction controlled the open movement. He said that 
 T/ie ^ Times' second line of attack had failed as completely as its first — the 
 publication of the forged letters. And then Mr. Davitt said something about 
 the letters, which arrested the attention of everybody present. He reminded 
 the Court ho\y in the O'Donnell trial the Attorney-General had said that The 
 Ti?nes, knowing what an informer's fate meant, would not divulge the name of 
 one of the "several" persons from whom the letters had been received. 
 " Several," Mr. Davitt repeated ; " this was said by her Majesty's Attorney- 
 General for England at a time when it was actually within the knowledge of 
 Houston and his co-conspirators in The Times o^ce that Pigott was the forger ; 
 for it has come to my knowledge, through Pigott's servant, that he confessed to 
 
 her " But here Sir James Hannen quickly interrupted him. Said the 
 
 President: "I cannot have any statement of that kind." " Very well, my 
 lord," was Mr. Davitt's reply, " it will have to be proved elsewhere." 
 
 Then Mr. Davitt returned to the American part of his address. He gave 
 interesting personal descriptions of the leading Irish-Americans whom he met, 
 and who have been named in the course of the evidence — Mr. M'Cafterty, Mr. 
 Collins, Mr. J. Mooney, Mr. Alex. Sullivan, Mr. Patrick Egan, Mr. John 
 Fitzgerald (present president of the Irish National League of America), Mr. 
 John Finerty, Mr. John Boyd O'Reilly, Mr. Brennan. The prosecution had 
 said that when the informers had begun to tell of the Phoenix Park murders 
 Mr. Egan took to flight. But Mr. Davitt showed that Mr. Egan was so horrified 
 at the news of the murders that he resolved there and then to retire from 
 
Friday'] the Parnell Commission. [Oct. 25. 313 
 
 political life and leave for the States. He quoted The Daily News Paris 
 correspondent's letter of April 20, 1S87, which was reproduced in The Times 
 of the following day, and in which were given the particulars of Mr. Egan's 
 reception of the terrible message in Paris, where he was living at the time. T/ie 
 Daily Neios letter is given below. 
 
 Finerty's views certainly were extreme, said Mr. Davitt ; but Finerty was 
 refused a hearing at the Philadelphia Convention of 18S3 because of his known 
 preference for violent methods. But Finerty, said Mr. Davitt, "is no empty- 
 headed fellow ; he is able and honourable ; his methods are not mine, but he 
 is as ready as any one else to make sacrifices for a cause he believes to be just.'* 
 Of the Hon. P. A. Collins, President of the first Land League Convention in 
 America, Mr. Davitt spoke in terms of high praise. Mr. Collins, he said, was 
 a Conservative, and no attempt had been made to connect him with revolu- 
 tionary societies. As for Mr. A. Sullivan, whose name was again before the 
 world, Mr. Davitt did not believe that the American clergy would have sup- 
 ported him as they did had he been a member of the Clan-na-Gael : and he 
 added that '^Ix. Sullivan certainly did not owe his election to the presidentship 
 to any violent opinions he might have entertained. With Egan Mr. Davitt's 
 intimacy had been, as he described it, close and affectionate ; he said that Mr. 
 Egan's character and career could bear the closest scrutiny. INIr. Fitzgerald, who 
 had raised himself from the position of a poor Irish labourer to that of one of the 
 wealthiest and most influential men in Nebraska, was, Tslr. Davitt said, known 
 as "honest John Fitzgerald." As for Mr. Brennan, Mr. Davitt pronounced 
 him incapable of any base transaction. And Mr. Davitt pointed out, as a 
 singular fact, that in 1884, Delaney — who was then examined in the Sligo con- 
 spiracy case — did not associate the name of Egan, or of Brennan, with the 
 Invincibles. Yet Delaney had done so before their Lordships. 
 
 Mr. Davitt then passed on to the topic of the League Conventions in 
 America. There was nothing, said Mr. Davitt, to bear out the story of secret 
 conclaves of assassination directing the open meetings of these Conventions, 
 except Beach's " bundles " of documents. Beach, like Pigott, exclaimed 
 Davitt, ' ' has produced documents which he declares to be authentic. I believe 
 these documents are in his handwriting. It was on the evidence of these docu- 
 ments, backed by the oath of a man of the infamous profession of a spy, who 
 acknowledged in the witness-box having perjured himself repeatedly, that The 
 Times relied for proof that the Land League and Clan-na-Gael was one and the 
 same organization, and that the dynamite explosions were carried out under the 
 auspices of that organization." Every eye in court was at that moment turned 
 upon Le Caron (Beach), who sat in his corner, with, as already said, a scowl 
 •on his face. 
 
 Against the " ridiculous ciphers " quoted by Beach, and Beach's secret circu- 
 lars to the Home Office, Mr. Davitt placed the records of seven Conventions of 
 the American League, Mr. Parnell's speeches, and the numerous resolutions, 
 instructions, circulars of all sorts which Mr. Davitt himself had distributed in 
 his capacity of central secretary for the American organization. Of all that 
 mass of documentary matter The Times, in Mr. Davitt's estimation, knew 
 nothing. And did The Ti??ies know anything of the bye-laws which were 
 adopted by the branches of the organization all over America, and about which 
 there was no concealment ? At that very time, said Mr. Davitt, ' ' I was a 
 guest in Beach's house ; I had a cold ; he gave me some medicine ; and I 
 believe the medicine did me good." Here the President smiled. Mr. Davitt 
 spoke to Beach unreservedly in those Braidwood days, and Beach kept nothing 
 secret from Mr. Davitt. How was it that Mr. Davitt was not accused by him ? 
 Curiously enough, Mr. Beach presided over a Braidwood meeting at which Mr. 
 Davitt delivered an unexceptionably constitutional address. Little did Mr. 
 Davitt think under what circumstances the man who gave him the bolus would 
 meet him again. 
 
314 Tttesdayl Diary of [Oct. 29. 
 
 The following are the passages quoted by T/ie Times from The Daily Ne-^us" 
 Paris letter referred to above : — 
 
 The French papers reflect the excitement which the Parnell affair causes in England. 
 Perhaps it may not be amiss for me to describe how Egan, whose name has been mixed up in 
 the matter, received the news of the Phoenix Park murders. I sought, entirely for journalistic 
 purposes, to make Egan's acquaintance while he was here, and got to know him very well, as 
 he happened to live near me, and I had frequent opportunities of meeting him in the tram- 
 cars, public gardens, and other places. It happened that I saw him at the moment he heard 
 of the Phoenix Park murders. It was at the Madeleine Station of the tramway leading to the 
 Avenue de Villers, where he resided. I was going in that direction and Egan was coming' 
 from it. He stepped out of the car and went to a kiosk to buy an evening paper, and then sat 
 down on a bench hard by to read it. When he opened and looked at it the paper fell from 
 his hand, and he became quite corpse-like. I had not, as he had not seen me, intended to 
 accost him, but when I perceived his state I was under the impression that he was dying, and 
 went to see what was the matter, so as to call assistance were it wanted. For perhaps five 
 minutes he could not speak, and kept staring in a fixed wa^^, looking more dead than alive. 1 
 questioned him at last, and he pointed to the paper La France, and said, " Look at that." I 
 picked it up, and read of the Phcenix Park affair. Egan's words, when he was able to speak. 
 were, " What ana\\ful calamity' ; Cavendish was the best of the whole lot. Poor Cavendish ; 
 poor Lord Frederick." Later on he conversed a good deal. His feeling was that what had 
 happened would damage the cause he had at heart. He was terrified at the savagery- of the 
 act. About ten days later I met him again in the street, and he told me he thought of going 
 off to_ some western part of America, where peace and quietness were to be obtained. Egan 
 was, it appeared to me, the very contrary of reckless or unscrupulous, and struck me as a maa 
 of gentle disposition and by no means strong nerve. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEENTH DAY. 
 
 October 29. 
 
 CoxTixuiNG his vindication of the American Leaguers, ]\Ir. Davitt argued io 
 the general effect that the spirit of their Conventions was fairly indicated in the 
 words of the Hon. P. A. Collins, President of the Convention at Washington^ 
 1 2th and 13th April, 1882, that "we in America shall go as far as the people 
 of Ireland, and no faster;" that "we" in America "are followers, not 
 leaders;" that if "I (the speaker) judge the Irish people rightly, they seek 
 justice, and not vengeance." These words, said Mr. Davitt, together with the 
 many speeches of which they formed, as it were, the text, were uttered a few 
 weeks before the horrible crime of Phoenix Park. 
 
 ^Ir. Davitt next illustrated his position by reference to the Astor House Con- 
 ference, New York, in the summer of 1882, at which Conference, said the 
 author of " Parnellism and Crime," the Fords, Walsh, and other notorious 
 Extremists were present. 2^Ir. Davitt observed that the " Flanagan or Pigott " 
 of " Parnellism and Crime" had said that he associated at this Conference with 
 murderers and assassins ; but that " on this occasion " he did denounce mur- 
 der. ]Mr. Davitt maintained that in putting the emphasis'on the word "this," 
 he was fairly interpreting the intention of the Pigott, or Flanagan, who wrote 
 " Parnellism and Crnne." Well, said Mr. Davitt, turning round to where The 
 Times people sat, " there is nothing more disgracefully suggestive to be found 
 in that liar's and forger's catechism, 'Parnellism and Crime.'" Mr. Davitt'.- 
 own speech, and the New York ^Mayor's speech at this very Conference were^ 
 ISIr. Davitt maintained, a sufficient refutation of "Pigott or Flanagan." Mr. 
 Davitt's speech had for its basis the proposition " the attainment, by moral and 
 justifiable means, of free land, free labour, free government for Ireland " ; 
 while, he added, the Mayor of New York's speech was a denunciation of the 
 Phcenix Park murder as " a crime against humanity and the civilization of the 
 age. " "Six. Davitt made some contemptuous references to the conduct of the 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Oct. 29. 315 
 
 " Pigott or Flanagan" of the articles in suppressing the names of those present 
 at the meeting who were not known to be in sympathy with the physical force 
 party, and in recording the names of the two or three who were. 
 
 The next serious misrepresentation of which he accused the writer or writers 
 of " Parnellism and Crime" was the statement that Mr. Egan was the origina- 
 tor of the " Martyrs' Fund," a fund, as the articles described it, for the 
 encouragement of assassination. But Mr. Davitt pointed out that the Egan in 
 question was not JNIr. Patrick Egan, but Mr. P. B. Egan. The " Martyrs' 
 Fund," said Mr. Davitt, "no more encouraged murder than the Discharged 
 Prisoners' Aid Fund encouraged burglary." Here Sir James Hannen threw in 
 the remark that contributors to the last-named fund "do not call the dis- 
 charged prisoners martyrs." Upon which Mr. Davitt merely repeated what 
 he had already said about the true character of the American fund. As for the 
 Egan misstatement, Mr. Davitt fully acknowledged that Sir Richard Webster 
 " frankly withdrew the charge, and apologized." It was a serious charge ; for 
 it also stated that Egan was present at a celebration — an " inhuman feast," as 
 T/ie Times writer called it — in honour of the memory of the murderer Joe Brady. 
 This was the " feast " at which a purse was presented to Mrs. Byrne, who was 
 said to have carried the knives to Ireland. As " Egan " was reported to have 
 been present at the feast, it was concluded that the " Martyrs' Fund " was an 
 assassination fund. But while JMr. Davitt acknowledged Sir Richard "Webster's 
 courtesy, he refused to believe that the misstatement in The Times was other- 
 wise than wilful and deliberate. By the omission of the initials " P. B.," said 
 Mr. Davitt, the " whole civilized world" was led to believe that the Egan pre- 
 sent at the "inhuman feast" was the colleague of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt 
 in the Irish National Land League. Finally, on this point, Mr. Davitt flatly 
 contradicted the story that the feasters, or any of them, were members of the 
 great Chicago Convention of August, 1886. And he read out the resolutions 
 of the Convention — expressing approval of Mr. Parnell' s Parliamentary policy, 
 and thanks to the British democracy and to Mr. Gladstone, and enjoining upon 
 the Irish people the exercise of self-restraint under whatever provocation. 
 
 " I do not deny," said ]\Ir. Davitt, that there must have been among the 
 members of these Conventions persons of extreme views — Clan-na-Gael people, 
 as well as Leaguers pure and simple. But even the Clan-na-Gael people pre- 
 sent were there, said Mr. Davitt, not as Clan-na-Gaels, but as supporters of the 
 Parliamentary policy of the Irish National League. "In no single instarice," 
 said ]Mr. Davitt, "has any one been appointed to office at these conventions, 
 unless as a supporter of Mr. Parnell's policy." "You must judge these con- 
 ventions," said Mr. Davitt, " by their corporate action," authorized by " over- 
 whelming niajorities." " Would you call the House of Commons a masonic 
 institution," asked Mr. Davitt, " because there may be a hundred Freemasons 
 in it? " " Do the opinions of Dr. Tanner, Mr. Bradlaugh, and Mr. Conybeare, 
 affect the sound Conservatism of the Attorney-General ? " The Clan-na-Gael 
 Society, said Mr. Davitt, existed legally, openly in the United States, and men 
 known to be members of it were also — as in the case of Mr. Finerty and INIr. 
 Haynes — members of State Legislatures. That being the case, why, Mr. 
 Davitt asked, should Mr. Parnell in America take it upon him to exclude such 
 •men from an organization intended to embrace the Irish race ? 
 
 The Attorney-General, said ISIr. Davitt, " has fought at long range ; " he did 
 not come to close quarters ; there were in America 2,000 branches of the Irish 
 League, yet from these 2,000 branches, continued Mr. Davitt, not a single 
 incriminating document, resolution, or act had been put in evidence by the 
 Attorney-General, " I now ask your lordships," said iNlr. Davitt, "whether 
 you think that in face of these facts you can think the Clan-na-Gael and the 
 American Land League were the same? " And if Sir Henry James, ]\Ir. Davitt 
 continued, maintains their identity, he must explain away the following facts : 
 
3i6 Tuesday] Diary of \Oct. 29. 
 
 the solemn oath of Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt that no such union or identity 
 ever existed ; The Times' failure to produce a particle of proof of such union, 
 save the forged letters ; that neither Mr. Parnell nor Mr. Sexton, nor any of 
 their envoys, or colleagues, from the Irish or American leagues, ever attended 
 a Clan meeting ; that neither ]Mr. Parnell nor Mr. Dillon, when in America, 
 were present at any Clan-na-Gael Council ; that in Beach's bundles of secret 
 circulars and correspondence there was not a single scrap of paper from the 
 Leagues, or from Mr. Parnell, or from Mr. Davitt himself to the Clan-na-Gael 
 Society, while in these very bundles of Beach's there were intimations of Land 
 League hostility to the Clan, and instructions to Clan-na-Gael members to try 
 and "capture " the Land League ; and that Beach failed to cite "a single word 
 or act " of Mr. Davitt's from 1878 to 1 886 which would go to prove Mr. 
 Davitt's alleged efforts to bring about the "alliance." And why had Beach 
 left it to Mr. Davitt to inform their lordships that he (Mr. Davitt) had visited 
 Clan-na-Gael camps ? 
 
 ■' The Clan-na-Gael are commonly called a murder club," Mr. Davitt con- 
 tinued. " But," he said, " there is no evidence that it is so. I do not believe 
 the Clan-na-Gael to be a murder club. If I did believe so, I would not have 
 associated with its members." "America," he added, "would not have 
 suffered the existence of ' a murder club ' against a friendly Power ; " and, in 
 fact, the Clan-na-Gael Society was "not, properly speaking, a secret society, 
 it was as well known as the Foresters, and it had its feasts and excursions " 
 like other brotherhoods not criminal. It is a " revolutionary " club, said Mr. 
 Davitt, but not a "murder club." And, continued Mr. Davitt, just as there had 
 been no union between the Clan-na-Gael and the Land League in America, so 
 there had been no union between the Land League and the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood in Ireland. Beach, added Mr. Davitt, has produced the " dam- 
 ning proof" of Mr. Parnell's photograph, "but that only shows that Mr. 
 Parnell may have been more liberal with his photograph to strangers (such as 
 ]\Ir. Beach, who said he received one) than to his own colleagues, not one of 
 whom has ever been favoured in that manner." Mr. Davitt's summing up of the 
 American part of his defence was a most skilful and impressive performance. 
 
 Mr. Davitt now came to the Irish portion of his address — the origin of the 
 Land League. The Times calls the League a Separatist conspiracy dating from 
 1879. Mr. Davitt undertook to show that it grew naturally out of the con- 
 dition of the Irish people, and that its beginnings were far earlier than 1879. 
 One of the main causes of the Land League was, said Mr. Davitt, the frustra- 
 tion of the efforts, during the period from 1850 to 1879, of the representatives 
 of the Irish people to improve the agrarian law and custom. To illustrate this, 
 Mr. Davitt proposed to give a rapid review of the legislative failures of the 
 period. But Sir James Hannen intervened with the objection that the Court 
 could not properly sit in judgment on Parliamentary legislation, and that it was 
 constituted to try a single issue, whether the parties accused did or did not 
 attempt to accomplish their ends in an unconstitutional manner. Sir James 
 Hannen did not wish to stop ]Mr. Davitt, but only to put it to him — whether 
 he considered such a review essential to his case. Mr. Davitt frankly acknow- 
 ledging the President's unfailing courtesy and kindness, and refraining from 
 taking advantage of Sir James's implied permission to him to follow his own 
 course, readily suppressed that portion of his address — "confiscated it, as he 
 expressed it afterwards. 
 
 Putting then legislation aside, ISIr. Davitt turned to other beginnings of the 
 Land League. Mr. Davitt observed that he must "rob himself" of the dis- 
 tinction of being the " Father of the Land League ; " "I was only," said Mr. 
 Davitt, " giving voice to the opinions of other men who came long before me." 
 Among these men, said he, were the founders of the Tenants' League, Mr. Isaac 
 Butt and his colleagues. The Tenants' League, or, to give it its full name, 
 
Tttesday] the Parnell Connnission. 'Oct. 29. 317 
 
 "The Tenants' Defence Association," was established nearly forty years ago. 
 Mr. Parnell was a member of it. So was Mr. Matt. Harris, and others who 
 subsequently formed the Land League, The speeches at the Tenants' and the 
 speeches of the Land League were, said Mr. Davitt, identical in scheme and 
 spirit. The Tenants' Association, founded nearly forty years ago, really began 
 the education of the Irish people. And if any proofs were required to show 
 that the Tenants' Association was a necessity, there were, said Mr. Davitt, the 
 remarkable articles published by Th^ Times during the period of the great 
 famine, and reprinted by The Times in 1880, when a second famine seemed 
 imminent. And certainly they were very strong articles, those in which The 
 Times of the day denounced the cruel selfishness of the landlord class, and 
 vividly pictured the misery of their rack-rented tenants. "The starving 
 mother with her dead child on her shoulder, and the rich landlord keeping his 
 pocket shut," were a spectacle that aroused the indignation and disgust of The 
 Times in days gone by. It was in such scenes that Mr. Davitt himself first 
 drew the breath of life — those were the scenes which first filled his childish 
 mind, and of which he retained the indelible memory. Islx. Davitt paused a 
 little and then spoke as follows : 
 
 I remember, although I was only a child, we were evicted in Maj'o shortly after the great 
 famine, and the house in which I was bom was burnt down by the agent of the landlord, 
 assisted by the agents of the law. That was not a circumstance that would cause me to be a 
 very warm supporter of the landlord, or for the law as it stood. I remember, though I was 
 only a child, we went to the workhouse a few miles away, and were refused admission because 
 my mother would not submit to certain conditions imposed on those who seek those homes of 
 degradation. In our English home I have listened to my mother's stories of the great famine, 
 and remember hearing from her an account of how three hundred people were buried during 
 that time — were thrown uncoffined into one pit in the corner of the workhouse j-ard. So great 
 an impression did that make upon me that, twenty-five years afterwards, when I visited the 
 place, I went straight to that very spot. ]\Iy lords, my experience was the experience of the 
 others of my class. 
 
 There was a dead silence in court as Mr. Davitt slowly, and with his strong, 
 unfaltering voice— but with his face paling — told his mournful story. A unique 
 instance of growth — from the homeless child, turned away from the workhouse, 
 to the mature man whom the Irish people all over the world revere, and whom 
 his misfortunes have educated into the advocate instead of the avenger of his 
 race. 
 
 Well, continued Mr. Davitt, the foregoing facts justified the Land League in 
 the attitude it took up in 1879 — that the peasants must feed their children first 
 and pay the landlords next. No more, if the League could help it, would the 
 peasants die of famine while the wealth they produced was exported to pay 
 rack-rent on lands which they themselves and not the landlords had reclaimed 
 and improved. It w^as said, observed Mr. Davitt, that the clearances would 
 improve the condition of the tenants who were left, but the tenants who were 
 left were as badly off as those who had been removed by famine and emigration. 
 The Act of 1870, said Mr. Davitt, did no good, for it prevented neither rack- 
 rent nor eviction. That was part of the natural histor}' of the Land League ; 
 but against these facts of history the prosecution had, said Mr. Davitt, little to 
 advance except a few extracts and wild speeches from " Scrab " Nallys, whom 
 eveiybody laughed at, and the "curiosities from that phonetic museum known 
 as the Royal Irish constable's notebook," 
 
 In his description of the Chicago Convention of August, 1886, Mr, Davitt 
 pointed out that Beach and the author of " Parnellism and Crime " contradicted 
 each other in their accounts of its origin. Beach said that the business of the 
 Convention was arranged at a preliminary sessions of which Finerty was the 
 ruling spirit. The author of " Parnellism and Crime " had said that its pro- 
 gramme was arranged by the feasters — Byrne, Hamilton, Williams, &c. — of the 
 Joe Brady anniversary. Said Mr. Davitt, none of those men were present at 
 
3iS Wednesday] Diary of [Oet. 30. 
 
 Chicago, save the two Fords, Avho did not even speak at the Convention, The 
 Convention, added ]Mr. Davitt, contained 1,027 members, and only one of 
 them — Mr. Finerty — voted against the resolutions in support of the Parnellite, 
 or Constitutional movement. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTEENTH DAY. 
 
 October 30. 
 
 Mr. Davitt began his day's vt'ork with a citation of Sir Richard Webster's 
 compendious description of the Land League, as " a scheme of assassination, 
 carefully calculated and coolly applied." It is meant, said Mr. Davitt, " that 
 Mr. Parnell and myself and others deliberately selected our instruments and 
 sent them about the country to help us by means of assassination." On the 
 previous day Mr. Davitt had remarked that if that was the character of the 
 Land League, "no such stupid body of men ever existed" as the League 
 leaders; for they were all along taking the very means best calculated to defeat 
 their criminal purpose. 
 
 Following up this line of argument, he now asked their lordships how that 
 theory of the prosecution could be reconciled with the programme of the Mayo 
 Land League (a body which in two months was expanded into the National 
 Land League of Ireland), and with the programme set forth by Mr. Parnell 
 himself at the great meeting of the Land League in the spring of 18S0 — a 
 programme which Mr. Davitt himself "considered too liberal to the land- 
 lords," inasmuch as it offered them the purchase of their lands at twenty years. 
 That was how the League leaders were then trying to drive out the " English 
 garrison," as the landlords are called, in Ireland. Take these programmes of 
 the League, take all its official documents, if you wish to know what were the 
 objects of the League. " Why, the very plans which are now entertained by 
 the Government for the settlement of the Irish question are the veiy plans 
 which we Leaguers were advocating ten years ago. I wonder whether the 
 landlords would now object to be murdered — to use the objectionable word 
 applied, to the League — by twenty years' purchase of their estates." Succes- 
 sive Governments, Mr. Davitt argued, had borrowed their, plans from the Land 
 League programme. The Compensation for Disturbance Bill was an instance 
 in point ; the Lords threw it out, and crimes broke out afresh. 
 
 Next Mr, Davitt came to the second general charge against the Land 
 League — that it did nothing to stop outrage — and he quoted the Attorney- 
 General's statement that (as far as he knew) there did not exist a single League 
 speech in denunciation of outrage. Logically, as he remarked, he might con- 
 tent himself with the production of one solitary speech; but, he said, "I 
 propose to hury the Attorney-General's charge so deeply in counter proofs 
 that Sir Heniy James will require microscopic aid to find it again, and shall 
 show that the Attorney-General was deliberately misled by those who em- 
 ployed him." The Attorney-General's charge was refuted by two of the very 
 first witnesses who appeared for T/ie Times, Constables O'Malley and Irwin. 
 These witnesses took down the speeches of " Scrab," a sort of half-witted 
 "wild man," at whom everybody laughed, while his (Mr. Davitt's) own 
 speeches denouncing outrage were carefully ignored. " I was a less eminent 
 person than ' Scrab/ " said VLx. Davitt. In the same way the Constabulary 
 reporter ignored the speech in v^^hich Father Eglington denounced the murder 
 of Lord !Mountmorres, although he took down the utterances of " Scrab " and 
 his friend Gordon. "There could be no grosser injustice than The Ti??ies^ 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission, 'Oct, 30. 319 
 
 suppression of the conciliatory speeches invariably made at League meetings, 
 by the League leaders and the local clergy." 
 
 To complete his proof against this, one of the most serious charges made by 
 Tlie Ti7nes, ]\Ir. Davitt now proposed to read speeches delivered by himself 
 xind the Land League leaders over a series of years, and throughout Great 
 Britain and Ireland, and even in parts of America. " I regret to have to talk 
 so long," he said, " but, with the exception of the forged letters' charge, this 
 is the most serious accusation made against my colleagues and myself ; and I 
 must ask your lordships' permission to deal with it in the completest way." 
 
 Sir James Hannen, remarking that this would amount to the introduction 
 of new evidence, hoped that Mr. Davitt would make his extract readmgs as 
 short as possible. But the Attorney-General was rather alarmed at this sudden 
 prospect of a reopening of this gigantic case. He objected that the production 
 of this fresh evidence might necessitate the calling of more witnesses ; at any 
 rate, he would have to verify Mr. Davitt's extracts and examine their contexts. 
 The President endorsed Sir Richard Webster's opinion so far as to say that 
 the time for producing fresh evidence was past. Then the three judges con- 
 sulted for a few minutes. At last Sir James Hannen announced their decision 
 — that notwithstanding the irregularity of Mr. Davitt's request, and in view of 
 the vast importance of the issues, they were anxious to give him the fullest 
 scope. ]Mr. Davitt heartily thanking their lordships for their indulgence, 
 offered to save time by simply putting in the dates of the speeches and the 
 names of the places where they were delivered, so that the judges and counsel 
 for the prosecution might satisfy themselves as to the truth of his general 
 description of them. But Sir James Hannen preferred to hear them all. So 
 ISIr. Davitt began with his reading. Sir Richard Webster, with a pile oiThe Frce- 
 vian' s Journal before him, found the task of following so tedious and difficult 
 that ^Ir. Davitt gave up the attempt. " It will take a week at that rate,"' he 
 remarked ; and thereupon he waived his right to go through his colleagues' 
 speeches, and he confined himself to his own. We need not accompany ^Ir. 
 Davitt over his speech-making in America. We will only say that the extracts 
 read by him, strong as they were, were not directed against landlords, but 
 against the landlord system. " Not one solitary speech denouncing crime," said 
 the Attorney-General. "Why there are hundreds, thousands of them," retorted 
 I\Ir. Davitt. He maintained that no League leader had ever said anything 
 stronger than Mr. Bright's observation to the effect that if Ireland were a 
 thousand miles off, and the landlords and tenants left face to face, the 
 tenants would soon settle their differences. " If the Government believed 
 The Times charges, why have we not been criminally prosecuted ? I can't 
 understand why I am here." 
 
 Having done with the Land League, Mr. Davitt gave a brief account of 
 the Ladies' Land League, which, he said, was conducted on the same lines as 
 the larger institution. It was he who first proposed the foundation of the 
 Ladies' Land League ; Mr. Parnell did not like it at all ; but Mr. Davitt often 
 calls INIr. Parnell " a regular Tory." " I am also charged," said Mr. Davitt, 
 "with encouraging boycotting." But he held that the kind of boycotting 
 which he defended had existed in all ages and countries ; and he quoted 
 a curious and striking instance from a "Blackwood" article of the year 
 1832, in which article all good Tories were enjoined to take away their 
 custom from all traders, and to boycott all manufacturers who supported 
 the Reform Bill. At the very lowest estimate one hundred thousand 
 speeches must have been delivered at League meetings during the eight years 
 following 1878. Sixty-nine persons were " named " in these one hundred 
 thousand speeches, and sixty of the sixty-nine remained uninterfered with. 
 
 Mr. Davitt arrived at his calculation of the number of speeches by halving 
 the actual number (2,000) of Land League branches, and assigning to each 
 
320 Thursday] Diary of [Oct. 31, 
 
 branch one meeting a month instead of one a fortnight, and one speech to each 
 branch in place of a string of speeches. He made the same deduction of 50 
 per cent, from the number of central office meetings and open-air assemblages. 
 As then, only nine persons had been assailed in eight years, it followed that 
 there was only the 10,690th part of an outrage for each year. Of the nine 
 persons assailed three were killed. When I say " three only," observed Mr. 
 Davitt, '* I do not wish to minimize criminality," " but I say these figures are 
 an unanswerable reply to the Attorney-General's statement that ' the Land 
 League rose like an exhalation to the sound of murderous oratory, and was 
 guarded about by assassins who enforced its high decrees by the bullet and the 
 knife.'" 
 
 Another statistical point of ^Ir. Davitt'swas — that of the twenty-six murders 
 perpetrated during the eight years (principally, as will be seen, of persons not 
 named at League meetings), nineteen were committed in 1881-2, during two- 
 thirds of which time no League existed. To prove that outrages increased with 
 evictions, Mr. Davitt quoted figures showing that in the eight years before the 
 League 24,11 ipersonswere evicted, and 1,981 agrarian outrages committed; but 
 that in the eight years after the foundation of the League the number of evicted 
 rose to 133,679, and of agrarian crimes to 14,956. For the first time since his 
 appearance before the Commission, Mr. Davitt broke down : he was describing 
 Irish evictions, and his feelings overcame him. 
 
 Mr. Davitt was lifting the curtain over the Irish Arcadia of the prosecution. 
 The constable witnesses, the agents, and the landlords had declared in 
 the witness-box that before 1879 no tenants took the precaution of paying^ 
 their rents at night, or perpetrated outrages upon grabbers. He now 
 carried the war into the enemy's camp. He read extracts from The 
 Times of 1854, showing that tenants sometimes did pay at night, and 
 that an "anti-rent campaign" was a thing not unknown in those days, 
 and that outrages were perpetrated upon grabbers — though the word 
 grabber was not then known. At that period also, said Mr. Davitt, 
 reading his extracts, men went about at night to intimidate people from 
 paying the landlords. " County Tipperary at that period occupied the 
 position which county Kerry holds in ours." And Captain Moonlight was 
 known in Arcadia; only he was called " Captain Starlight." This was the 
 most interesting part of the extracts. A very curious letter was read from the 
 "Captain Starlight" of thirty-five years ago, a letter in which the Captain 
 warned somebody that twelve men had drawn lots to kill him, that the lot fell 
 upon the undersigned ; but that the undersigned gave him timely notice to 
 vacate his farm, "otherwise you will be accessory to your own death." So 
 that according to Mr. Davitt's documentary proofs, the Arcadia of the land 
 agents and the R.I.C.'s was not always happy. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTEENTH DAY. 
 
 October 31. 
 
 "Three exquisite scoundrels," Mr. Davitt called them^ — the informers 
 Farragher and Delaney and the forger Pigott. The first-named, observed 
 Mr. Davitt, said he had been in confidential employment in the Land 
 League office, yet he had not been able to produce a single proof of pay- 
 ment of Land League money for criminal purposes. Here Mr. Davitt dwelt — 
 as he did the day before— on the striking fact that only one such proof had 
 been found in the whole known history of the Land League, with its hundreds 
 
Thicrsday] the Parnell Commission. [Oct. 31. 321 
 
 of branches and multitudes of members scattered all over Ireland. But even 
 this solitary payment was made on the personal authority of a Land League 
 clerk, the League itself being at that time in a state of demoralization, in 
 consequence of the imprisonment of its leading members and officials. 
 Farragher had admitted that he had been charged with drunkenness and 
 immorality of various sorts. This was by the Guardians of Ballinrobe, in 
 the workhouse of which Farragher was master. The Guardians dismissed 
 him ; but Farragher did not appeal to the Local Government Board. Far- 
 ragher's own account of the way in which he had been led to give evidence 
 was, Mr. Davitt maintained, untrustworthy. According to Farragher's story, 
 he was subpoenaed in consequence of what he had said to five or six persons 
 in Ballinrobe ; but in reply to Sir Charles Russell, Farragher said he knew 
 only one man of the five or six, " and this he said," remarked 'Mx. Davitt, " of 
 a place near which he was iDorn, in which place he was then master of a 
 workhouse, in a Mayo village of two thousand or three thousand people, 
 where everybody knew who everybody else was. He actually swore that he 
 could not give the date of his own eviction." 
 
 The Attorney-General had said that the Land League agents used to get 
 sums of twenty or thirty pounds from Mr. Biggar, or some other official, for 
 criminal purposes. How was it that the informer Farragher, who swore he 
 had been employed in the League office from May, 1880, to October, 1 88 1, 
 had been unable to produce a single proof of such use of League funds ? The 
 very fact that Farragher was unable to substantiate the Attorney-General's 
 charges was, Mr. Davitt argued, a demonstration of their falsity. Land 
 League books were missing, but was it suggested that the League leaders 
 having prophetic knowledge of the present Commission, destroyed the docu- 
 ments that would establish the proof of Pigott's statements ? 
 
 Another charge against us, said Mr. Davitt, is that the Invincibles were a 
 branch of the Land League, paid by Mr. Egan. But for this charge there 
 was no proof except the statements of the Invincible convict and informer 
 Delaney and the forger Pigott. jNIr. Davitt regarded it as absurd that Pigott's 
 "bogus interview" with Eugene Davis should be accorded_ greater respect 
 than the acknowledged character of Egan and of Brennan. This same Delaney 
 had been taken out of gaol in order to give evidence against P. N. Fitzgerald 
 at the Dublin trial of 1884 ; " but the jury was so scandalized at Delaney 's 
 perjuries that it added a resolution to its verdict of acquittal stating that 
 Delaney was unworthy of belief, even on his oath." Mr. Davitt then recalled 
 Delaney's own story, that Shannon, one of The Times agents, introduced 
 himself to him in prison as a Crown solicitor in order to get from him, on his 
 oath, evidence against the accused. He added : "In justice to Delaney, 
 however, I ought to say that within the past few weeks he has addressed a 
 
 letter " But here Sir Richard Webster hastily interrupted him. " No, 
 
 Mr. Davitt, you have no right to make such a statement." "Evidently," 
 rei^lied Mr. Davitt, " the Attorney-General knows all about it, as he objects 
 to'what I was going to say before I said it." " I objected to your referring to 
 statements not in evidence," Sir Richard Webster explained. 
 
 Mr. Davitt passed on to another of The Times charges against the League, 
 that Mr. Parnell was intimate with the Invincibles before the Phoenix Park 
 murders, and that he apologized to them for his condemnation of the murders. 
 For this accusation, Mr. Davitt held, there was only the word of the forger, 
 whose pamphlets and bogus interview formed the basis of " Parnellism and 
 Crime." " We are asked to beheve that The Times knew nothing of Pigott 
 before his appearance in the box. O! saiicta simplicitas I it is known who 
 subscribed the money which Houston gave to Pigott, and as surely as your 
 lordships tolerate my address here to-day, so surely shall the names, the 
 donations, and the dates they gave them on, be made public before long ; and 
 those who did it will have to take the consequences before the world." 
 
 22 
 
322 Thursday] Diary of [Oct. 31. 
 
 When the forgeries were at last admitted, said INIr. Davitt, the tone adopted 
 by The Times was " characteristically mean." There was no " manly 
 apology " to Mr. Parnell or Mr. Egan or the others who were libelled. The 
 Times' s expression of regret merely meant, "We regret deeply that we have 
 failed to convict you of forgery, and therefore we apologize." But was it true 
 that The Times knew nothing of Pigott? By way of answering this question, 
 ISIr. Davitt read articles from The Times of 1 871, in which this same Pigott 
 was denounced for his sympathy with assassination. There was a murmur of 
 laughter in court when ^Ir. Davitt declared that in that remote period Pigott 
 cha'i-ged The Times with having forged "a malicious libel" against him ! 
 Well, poor Pigott had his revenge — in 1886-9. 
 
 The remaining charges, about the knives in Palace Chambers and the Byrne 
 cheque, Mr. Davitt passed over rapidly. He then came to two pathetic inci- 
 dents of the Phoenix Park murders. His hearers listened to them in deep 
 silence. Among the hundreds of cards left at Lady Frederick Cavendish's 
 house, by S}Tnpathisers, on the day after the murders, was Mr. A. M. Sullivan's. 
 Mr. Sullivan expected no recognition of his visit. Next morning he received 
 from Lady Frederick a note thanking him for his sympathy and assuring him 
 that she did not lay her husband's murder at the door of the Irish people. 
 The other incident was the following : — When the Phoenix Park murderers 
 were in prison, awaiting execution, a Sister of Mercy visited them daily. She 
 paid particular attention to Joe Brady. She took a message from him to his 
 mother on the morning of his execution. Joe Brady never knew that his 
 visitor was the sister of the man whom he killed in Phoenix Park — IVIr. Burke. 
 
 Mr. Davitt now came to the close of his speech. He thanked their lord- 
 ships for their fairness to him personally — he had felt it from the beginning ; 
 he regretted his want of legal training ; he knew that the people of Ireland 
 thought as he did, that no matter how bitter their memories of misgovernment 
 might have been, these memories would die out under the influence of the 
 awakening goodwill of the English nation. However unskilful in a technical 
 sense his conduct of his case might have been, he had at least refrained from 
 using the venal talents of the forger, and from tempting convicts with the 
 prospect of liberty. Here are some passages from the peroration of Mr. 
 Davitt's speech : — 
 
 " This is, if I may say so without presumption, as serious and momentous a 
 duty as any judge in England has ever been called upon to perform. The 
 tradition of your lordships' exalted position, exalted as it is above the play of 
 political passion or the influence of fear, will call — and I am sure will not call 
 in vain — for the exercise by this Court of the great qualities of trained ability, 
 calmness, discriminating judgment, and courage which are the proud boast of 
 the judicial Bench of England, ^^^lether or not the test of cold indiscrimi- 
 nating law can alone decide an issue in which political passion has played so 
 great a part, and whether the heated language of platform oratoiy or the 
 sometimes crude attempts at political reform are to be weighed in the balance 
 of legal scales, which have never, in England at least, been made to test 
 political action, or whether the test is to lie with the amalgam of law in its 
 highest attributes and of calm reason and consideration of the men and 
 motives of the Land League, which is accused, and of The Times, which 
 has made these charges ; as a layman I am unable to forecast ; but, be that 
 as it may, if the decision be only based upon truth and guided by the simple 
 monitor of common sense, I, on my own behalf and on th;A of the Land 
 League and the peasantry of Ireland, hopefully, confidently, and fearlessly 
 will say, ' Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.' " 
 
 As ^Ir. Davitt sat down there was a burst of applause, with which, quite 
 irregular though it was, neither the President nor the court officers interfered. 
 *' It was not necessary for you, Mr. Davitt," said Sir James Hannen, bending 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Coniinission. [Oct. 31. 333 
 
 forward, "to plead your want of legal knowledge, for you have put your 
 argument with great force and ability, and we are obliged to you for having 
 given us the assistance which has been withheld by others." 
 
 At this compliment by the President the applause was renewed. Mr. Davitt 
 rose and bowed respectfully to their lordships. 
 
 At a few minutes before one o'clock Sir Henry James rose to reply. He 
 came to close quarters almost at once. He began by answering the prelimi- 
 nary questions in Sir Charles Russell's speech, Who are the accusers ? who 
 are the accused ? when were the accusations made ? The accusers, said Sir 
 Henry, are not people who have been, as Sir Charles Russell described them, 
 consistent only in one thing — hostility to the Irish people. The Times supported 
 the Irish people in Catholic emancipation, in their demand for an extended 
 franchise, for disestablishment, for agrarian reform. The Times supported 
 the cause of the Irish nation, said Sir Henry James ; and that brought him to 
 the answer to the second question— that the accused were, not the Irish people, 
 but only a body of agitators. The Times, said Sir Henry James, has not 
 made an indictment against a nation, but against a particular combination of 
 men. As for the third question, his answer was that the accusations began to 
 be made in February, 1887, when in the debate on the Address Mr. Parnell 
 said the Government would have to choose between the League and the 
 Invincibles. 
 
 " That speech " (said Sir Henr^^ James) " was made in the month of February, 18S7, and in 
 the first article that has been the subject of the inquiry in ' O'Donnell v. Walter,' the first 
 article of those which constitute the publication called ' Parnellism and Crime,' a reference 
 is made to that saying of Mr. Parnell's ; and it was for the purpose of demonstrating if the 
 alternativ^es were as Mr. Parnell stated them to be, what would be the fate of that country 
 if, the Invincibles being put on one side, there should remain one alternative and one only— 
 the League, as the de facto and absolute government of Ireland. That was the time, my 
 lords, when the accusations were made." 
 
 " It is said that these charges are stale," but the "proofs " of these charges 
 have never before been " collected and arranged," "linked together," for the 
 public information. Sir Henry James next proceeded to argue that the four 
 causes to which Sir Charles Russell traced Irish discontent were either irrele- 
 vant or obsolete. The four causes were restriction of trade, the penal code, 
 landlord power, and mistrust of the Government. But, said Sir Henry, the 
 first two causes disappeared long ago ; while as for the third, improved agrarian 
 law (coupled with emigration, or diminution of the population) has made the 
 Irish people more prosperous than at any period of their history. Doubtless 
 there was discontent, and that very discontent Mr. Davitt made use of when, 
 in 1877, he emerged from prison an unconverted Fenian, to accomplish the 
 purpose of his life — separation between Great Britain and Ireland. Sir Henry 
 James drew a vi>vid picture of Mr. Davitt planning, during the "dark, dreary 
 years " of his imprisonment, his future career. As soon as Mr. Davitt came 
 out of prison he rejoined the Fenian Brotherhood, and became a member of 
 their Supreme Council. Sir Henry James contended that Mr. Davitt's purpose 
 was unchanged, only the means w^ere changed, or rather extended — to Fenianism 
 Mr. Davitt added the Peasant Movement. 
 
 There was the Irish famine of 1846 ; and Sir Henry James admitted its 
 effects as a cause of political and social disturbance. But he argued that 
 even the great famine was more of a blessing than a curse to the Ireland of to- 
 day — economically considered. He contended that in his description of Irish 
 misery Sir Charles Russell had gone for his facts to the last century ; and he 
 traced Sir Charles's quotation, "the worst clad, worst fed, and worst housed 
 population upon the face of the civilized globe," to Lord Chesterfield ; and 
 ^'therefore," said Sir Henry, "they must have been spoken a hundred years 
 ago." The causes of Irish distress did not arise to any considerable extent 
 
.324 Thursday} Diary of [Oct. 31. 
 
 from landlord oppression, but from over-population in the eighteenth century, 
 coupled with the sudden cessation, at the end of the Napoleonic wars, of the 
 demand for Irish agricultural products. The small corn-growing crofts were 
 then amalgamated into pasture-lands. Therefore, when the famine came, the 
 over-dense population of small cultivators died of hunger. By the year 1881 
 three-fourths of the old population of about eight millions disappeared — all 
 the better, economically, for the survivors, thought Sir Heniy, quoting the 
 following passage from Dr. Grimshaw's history : — 
 
 Possibly we might have advanced faster than we have done ; but when we consider the 
 mighty collapse that took place at the commencement of the past half-century, which began 
 in the daj^s of the great famine of 1846, 1847, and 1848, it may be that Ireland has advanced 
 more rapidly, and recovered from a condition of almost total wreck, more completely than any 
 other country would have done, or ever has done. 
 
 In short, the Land Act of 1870, imperfect though it was, had removed the 
 political grievances of Ireland ; and any revolutionary appeal to the peasants 
 must be made on social considerations and to their individual, and class, 
 selfishness. The man who made this appeal was ]\Ir. Davitt, who, having 
 been in prison for so many years before 1878-9, could not have known the 
 happy state of things brought about in Ireland since the Land Act of 1870. 
 Sir Henry James's remarks on Mr. Davitt, at this stage of his address, are 
 worth quoting : — 
 
 " Some of us here have sat in close contact with 'Six. Davitt. Your lord- 
 ships will have observed the quickness with which he has appreciated your 
 rulings. I am sure that there is not one amongst my learned friends who is 
 not grateful to him for the courteous bearing which he has observed towards 
 us, and for the assistance which he has rendered us, his great knowledge of 
 this case having enabled him to do so more than once. ^Ye have here gained 
 some insight into that strange quickness of intelligence, that instinctive power 
 which must have made him a paramount figure in any negotiations with the 
 Irish peasantry, an agent almost invincible when contending with men of a 
 lower degree of intelligence. I think there are few men who have been in 
 contact with. Mr. Davitt who would not feel it a repugnant task to trace to him 
 conduct involving bad motives or errors of judgment. But the facts of the 
 case stand before your .lordships, and Mr. Davitt's conduct must be judged 
 by you." 
 
 As already said, Sir Henry James pointed to the fact that Mr. Davitt, as 
 soon as he was released from Dartmoor, rejoined the Fenian Brotherhood. 
 He quoted the Old Bailey letter, which we reproduce here, and to which 
 reference is made in Mr. Davitt's cross-examination. This letter, written to a 
 fellow-Fenian in 1869, was found upon Forrester, at Forrester's arrest, and 
 produced at the Old Bailey trial : — 
 
 " Dear Friend, — I have just returned from Dundee, which place I have left all right. 
 Your letter of Monday I have just read. I have no doubt but what the account is correct. 
 In reference to the other affair, I hope you won't take anj- part in it whatever — I mean in the 
 carrying of it out. If it is decided upon and you receive Jem's, and through him Fitz's 
 consent, let it be done bj- all means ; but one thing 3-ou must remember, and that is that you 
 are of too much importance to our familj- to be spared, even at the risk of allowing a rotten 
 sheep to exist among the flock. You must know that if anything happened to you the toil 
 and trouble of the last six months will have been almost in vain. Whoever is employed don't 
 let him use the pen we are and have been selling ; get another for the purpose, a common 
 one. I hope and trust when I return to Maji I may not hear that everj- man, woman, and 
 child know all about it ere it occurred.'' 
 
 While willing to accept ]Mr. Davitt's explanation that he wrote the letter, 
 in order, — through the device of delay — to prevent murder, Sir Henry James 
 quoted it as proof of the character of the organization which Mr. Davitt 
 rejoined. 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. i. 325 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEENTH DAY. 
 
 November i. 
 
 Like the speaker who preceded him, Sir Henry James thoroughly interests 
 his hearers. But his lay audience is larger than any which listened to Mr. 
 Davitt. To judge from the appearance of the court to-day, the crowds which 
 came, expecting to hear an exceedingly able speech, were in no wise dis- 
 appointed. As Sir Henry James said, in the opening part of his address, it 
 was not the charges themselves which were new, but the linking together of 
 the chain of proof. It was the general opinion that in this linking operation 
 Sir Henry James displayed great dexterity. Anyhow, he succeeded in im- 
 parting considerable freshness to a tale eleven years old, one year and ten days 
 of which have been spent in telling it in Probate Court Number One. The 
 proposition which he is doing his best to prove is that the Land League was 
 the offspring of treason — not of the social conditions enumerated by Sir 
 Charles Russell and Mr. Davitt. In the first day's instalment of his address, 
 he maintained that Mr. Davitt's aim had been the same after his imprisonment 
 as before it. To-day he endeavoured to show what the means were to which 
 Mr. Davitt had recourse. INIr. Davitt himself had admitted, said Sir Henry 
 Jaiiies, that he went to America in 1S78, immediately after his release from 
 prison, with a purpose. 
 
 The men with whom Mr. Davitt associated in America were the men from 
 whose combination the Land League sprang. These men were the trustees of 
 the " Skirmishing" Fund ; and a letter copied into The Free/nan of Novem- 
 ber, 1879, and signed by Trustees Carroll, Luby, Breslin, Devoy, and one of 
 the Fords, said that the object of the Skirmishers was to strike a blow against 
 England wherever and whenever an opportunity offered itself — such a blow, 
 for example, as the laying of London in ashes. Mr. Davitt, Sir Henry James 
 argued, must have known what this fund was, and who its trustees were, when 
 he went to America. John Devoy, he continued, joined the new Land League 
 movement only because it was a "step towards the overthrow of the English 
 dominion," The Land League platform was the only one on which the 
 various Irish and Irish- American parties — agrarian revolutionists and political 
 revolutionists — could meet. 
 
 The plan was, said Sir Henry James, quoting ]\Ir. Lalor, a revolutionist of 
 1848, to link repeal to some other question, like a tender to its engine. This, he 
 maintained, was what Mr. Davitt was doing in his American lectures ; and a 
 lecture which Mr. Davitt delivered at Brooklyn in October, 1878, proved, 
 added Sir Henry James, that the idea of an alliance between the physical 
 force party in America and Mr. Parnell's Parliamentary party at home was 
 " already present in Mr. Davitt's mind." For only a few days before the 
 delivery of this speech the famous cablegram, correctly quoted by Le Caron, 
 had been sent to Mr. Parnell by Dr. Carroll, Breslin, Devoy, General Millen, 
 and other trustees of the Skirmishing Fund. " I accept Mr. Davitt's explana- 
 tion," said Sir Henry James, "that this cablegram was retained by Mr. 
 Kickham and not shown to Mr. Parnell ; but " — and here Sir Henry James 
 assumed his most emphatic manner both in voice and gesture — " I look upon 
 it as the result of Mr. Davitt's intercourse with the revolutionists, who would 
 not have sent it unless they knew Mr. Davitt's views." The cablegram, said 
 Sir Henry James, recommended, among other measures, the substitution of 
 independence for federation, and agrarian agitation on the basis of peasant 
 proprietorship. 
 
 Again, in the month of December, 1878, another lecture by Mr, Davitt, 
 and a letter from Devoy in The Freeman, were, in Sir Henry James's estima- 
 
326 Friday] Diary of [Nov. i. 
 
 tion, proofs that in the purpose of the lecturer and the writer, the agrarian 
 movement was only the means towards the great end of independence. In 
 the lecture Mr. Davitt was reported to have said that " selfishness was the 
 mainspring of all human action," the selfish appeal in this case being an 
 appeal to the cupidity of the tenant farmers ; while Mr. Devoy, in his letter 
 to T/ie Freeman, advocated the severance of the political connection with 
 England, declared that " the physical strength of the nation must be put into 
 the effort," but recommended the adoption of some kind of compromise until 
 the leaders of the agitation should feel themselves sufficiently strong. Here 
 followed one of Sir Heniy James's effective passages. "Mr. Davitt says that 
 his ' new departure ' was not the same as Devoy's, but I say that the two 
 departures were as the two wings of the same army." Devoy, said Sir Henry, 
 took the physical force wing ; Mr. Davitt appealed to agrarian " selfishness " ; 
 but their action was combined. In December, 1878, continued Sir Henry 
 James, Mr. Davitt and Mr. John Devoy came to Ireland, and Devoy came for 
 one purpose only — to strengthen, to arm all who were willing to fight against 
 England ; Devoy came on a "treasonable " business, and the report which he 
 produced in America in August, 1879, soon after his return from Ireland, 
 proved it. Here Sir Henry James read Devoy's report of his inspection of 
 Fenian militaiy stores in Ireland, of importations of arms, and generally of 
 his tour among the seven " provinces " into which the Fenians divided the 
 United Kingdom. Mr. Davitt, Sir Henry James went on, refused to say what 
 Devoy's mission to Ireland was. In 1879, General Millen and Dr. Carroll 
 came to Ireland, but Mr. Davitt would not tell why they came. "Eloquent 
 silence," exclaimed Sir Flenry. General Millen came, like Devoy, for 
 "treasonable" purposes. Mr. Davitt, the speaker continued, was equally 
 reticent about Carroll's mission. And then Sir Hemy James finished this part 
 of his speech with an emphatic declaration that at that time Mr. Davitt's open 
 agitation was " a mere ingredient in a treasonable conspiracy." 
 
 Put in another way, Sir Henry James's main position amounted to this : — 
 That the establishment of the Land League only proved that ]\Ir. Davitt and 
 Devoy had captured INIr. Parnell's constitutional .organization. The objects of 
 the Land League, said Sir Heniy James, were not to be found in the written 
 articles of that body, but in the actions of Mr. Davitt and Mr. John Devoy, 
 and in speeches by Brennan, Boyton, Sheridan, and others, including jNIr. 
 Parnell, who said that he would not " put off his coat " for the constitutional 
 movement if he did not think it led to the " legislative independence 
 of Ireland." Sir Heniy, quoting a few expressions from the speeches, 
 contented himself with giving their dates, places, and names. Then he 
 quoted Mr. Matt. Harris's remark that it was necessar}^ to do something to 
 rouse up the "dormant peasantry" of Ireland. They did need rousing up, 
 Sir Henry James thought, for he proceeded to argue (from statistics) that just 
 before ]\Ir. Davitt started the Mayo Land League, the Mayo peasants were 
 more comfortably off than they had been for many years. Sir Henry James 
 repudiated the stories about Mayo distress about the time of the foundation of 
 the Mayo League. And when the Mayo League was started at Irishtown in 
 the spring of 1879, '^vho conducted it ? Fenians : the Irishtown meeting " was 
 a Fenian one," said Sir Hemy James, "all the speakers, except one, Mr. 
 John Fergusson, of Glasgow," were Fenians ; and the resolutions were so 
 worded as to include the programmes of " both wings " of the " same army." 
 
 In a short time the Mayo League was merged in the National Land League 
 of Ireland. This was on the 21st of October, 1879. Sir Henry James repeated 
 the testimony already given by Messrs. Parnell and Davitt themselves — Mr. 
 Parnell was reluctant to found a central organization ; Mr. Parnell was ap- 
 prehensive that the central organization might be held responsible for the acts 
 of local and distant bodies ; ]Mr. Parnell had in mind the warning of INIr. 
 
Friday'] the Parnell Coimnission. [Nov. i. 327 
 
 Isaac Butt, that such responsibility would be sure to arise. But " the man of 
 strong will," as Sir Henry James called him, Mr. Davitt, forced his will upon 
 the parliamentarians, and " secured " them. Once more, IMr. Davitt, who 
 had no means of his own, wanted money for his League agitations, and 
 continued Sir Henry James, a letter, enclosing money, came from Devoy. 
 Mr. Davitt received ;!^48o in all, and he received it from the Skirmishing 
 Fund. "It has been argued," said Sir Henry, " that the League did not 
 receive this money ; but the question is, what connection had it with the 
 events out of which the Land League grew ; the money went to the move- 
 ment." 
 
 Sir Henry James made some satirical remarks on what he called the " soup 
 delivery" view of the Land League, as set forth by Sir Charles Russell and Mr. 
 Reid, by Archbishop Walsh and the clerical witnesses. The Land League was 
 not an organization for the relief of distress, for the liberation of tenants from 
 landlord oppression. It was valued by its founders only as a means to the end 
 of complete national independence. " Mr. Davitt must have been laughing 
 at my friend," said Sir Henry James ; " I give Mr. Davitt the credit that his 
 views are broad enough, and we may think them wrong ; but be they right 
 or wrong, he is a man of different character, and of a different style and mode 
 of action to those who will cloak their design under the pretence, and the 
 miserable pretence, of doing an act of charity, when their whole object was of 
 a different, and far different, description." 
 
 Sir Henry James concentrated his main effort upon the attempt to establish 
 an identity of thought and feeling between Mr. Davitt and Mr. John Devoy. 
 The Devoy cablegram was, Sir Henry James held, in complete harmony with 
 Mr. Davitt's American utterances, to the effect that the Home Rule party of 
 1878 did not represent the Irish popular feeling, that "not one of the 103 
 representatives in Parliament from Ireland ever hints that he represents a 
 people who desire a separate national existence." To prepare for the attain- 
 ment of this end by physical means was, Sir Henry maintained, the reason 
 why John Devoy accompanied Mr. Davitt to Ireland in December, 1888. And 
 here he made use of the evidence of Mr. John O'Connor, maintaining that 
 Devoy, in spite of his public denunciation of " rat holes of conspiracy," must 
 have secretly advised ]\Ir. O'Connor and other Fenians to remain in them. 
 And in the report which Devoy presented to the United Brethren, or Clan-na- 
 Gael on his return to America, and to which we have already alluded, he said 
 that as soon as Leinster and Munster were "thoroughly organized" there 
 would be fifty thousand "good members " of the I. R. B. in Ireland. 
 
 Mr. Justin McCarthy, having heard glowing accounts of Sir Henry James's 
 oratory, came to hear. He listened for about an hour : he then left, as if he 
 had had enough of it. The only other accused member present was Mr. 
 Biggar. Captain O'Shea sat on the solicitor's bench. So did Mr. Arthur 
 Waher, Mr. Buckle, INlr. Soames. Mr. Reid, Q.C., M.P., appeared for the 
 first time since the great secession. He was in wig and gown. In front of 
 him sat IMr. Lockwood. It seemed as if Sir Henry's eloquence passed by Mr. 
 Lockwood's ears like the idle wind. More caricatures for the collectors of the 
 twenty-first century ? Mr. Lockwood was industriously scratching away at 
 something — not jottings of the speech. After a time he picked up his bits of 
 paper and walked out. 
 
328 Tuesday] Diary of [Nov. 5. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND NINETEENTH DAY. 
 
 November 5. 
 
 vSiR Henry James began his day's work with a brief recapitulation of Mr. 
 Davitt's career soon after his release from prison. Mr. Davitt returned from 
 America, put himself into personal communication with the Fenian brethren of the 
 western districts, through which he was making a tour, and, according to Mr. 
 Davitt's own statement, John Devoy was going about those same regions at 
 the same time. But Mr. Davitt refused to tell what Devoy was there for. 
 Devoy, the skirmisher and the Clan-na-Gael revolutionist, and Mr. Davitt, 
 still a Fenian — these, in Sir Henry's estimation, were the joint authors of the 
 organizations soon to arise in Ireland and America. As for the Land League 
 organization founded on the 21st of October, 1879, its real object was, not 
 agrarian relief, but political separation ; and all that the League leaders did 
 for the relief of distress and the reduction of rents was done, not for these 
 purposes as ends in themselves, but to unite classes in an attempt to secure 
 another end — that of Irish independence and political separation. Such was 
 the general drift of Sir Henry James's argument. 
 
 And now he proceeded to give his reasons and illustrations. In the first 
 place, he observed, the central office of the Land League did not publish its 
 Constitution until the 27th of November, 1880 — more than twelve months 
 after the establishment of that body. There were, however, very soon after 
 the establishment of the League, certain injunctions issued to the tenant 
 farmers, and in one of them, grabbers, (to use a short title) were named as 
 traitors. These injunctions, or regulations, appeared to have been issued on 
 the 30th of December, 1879. But in the Constitution of November, 1880, 
 proclaimed with all the authority of the League, there was, he said, nothing 
 about traitors, although, according to the injunctions already named, and 
 distributed among the League branches, grabbers would be treated as such. 
 The League leaders, said Sir Henry James, regarded the rules of the Constitu- 
 tion as " a sham, to get the timid " into the new organization. That was the 
 only importance he attached to the League rules. They were framed " for 
 13urposes of concealment ; " they were silent on the real object of the League ; 
 they were devised for the purpose of enlisting all classes '• in the common 
 army." This, said he, disposed of Sir Charles Russell's contention that a 
 conspiracy should be tried by its avowed object. If the " public statement " 
 of League rules was " a sham," what w^as the real " principle " of the organi- 
 zation ? To show what this was. Sir Henry James first quoted a letter from 
 Mr. Davitt to T/ie h-ish World, and reproduced in United Ireland on May 
 21, 1884. In this letter Mr. Davitt, commenting on the differences of opinion 
 about the true character of the Land League [then no longer in existence] 
 observed that in 1879 self-government was not included in its programme ; 
 that the programme had to be framed in such a way as not to "scare timid 
 reformers," and with a view to enabling members of the Parnellite party to 
 deny in Parliament that political independence was the goal of the Land 
 League. Sir Henry James next quoted Alexander Sullivan as having said 
 that the "first plank" of the American Land League [a body founded by 
 Messrs. Devoy and Davitt] was "self-government," and the second plank 
 peasant proprietorship. This same word "self-government " occurs, said Sir 
 Henry James, in Mr. Davitt's Boston speech and in Devoy's famous letter 
 quoted in The Freeman. 
 
 A portion of Mr. Sullivan's letter, as quoted by Sir Henry James, may be 
 given here : — 
 
 Contrary to the belief of many, the Land Leagne was of American origin. Its plat- 
 form was drawn in the city of New York by Irish Nationalists residing in America, 
 
Tuesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 5. 329 
 
 •of whom the best known is Mr. John Devoy, in consultation with ]\Ir. Michael Davitt 
 on his first visit to the United States in 1878. The first plank of the platform was a 
 declaration for self-government. The second advocated vigorous agitation of the land question 
 on the basis of a peasant proprietary-, v/hile accepting concessions tending to abolish arbitrary 
 eviction. After the platform drawn up in New York had been thoroughly discussed by the 
 Irish Parliamentary party, it was agreed to by them, and the Land League was organized in 
 Dublin, October 21, 1879. 
 
 Sir Henry James's third point was elaborated at considerable length. It 
 was a denial of Sir Charles Russell's arginiient that distress produced the 
 Land League. The Land League took advantage of distress, was Sir Henry's 
 counter-proposition. The dexterity with which he argued this proposition was 
 generally admired. There was no distress, he said, when the Land League 
 was being formed. Nor was there distress in 1878 ; that year was, in fact, an 
 average year as regards prosperity. [In a previous part of his speech he called 
 it a more than average year.] Not until late in the year 1879 was there, he 
 affirmed, any reason to expect serious distress. In the address issued at the 
 foundation of the Land League, October 21, 1879, and signed by Messrs. 
 Parnell, Egan, and Davitt, it was not said that relief of distress was an object 
 of the new organization. The relief certainly was given when the distress 
 became acute, but Sir Henry James denied that the contingency had been 
 present to the " minds of the agitators." Not until the last days of December, 
 
 1879, did Mr. Parnell say that the League associated itself with relief work ; 
 and that was in his interview with Mr. Ives, of TAe New York Herald^ who 
 on that date embarked with him for America. Even on the 4th of January, 
 
 1880, the date of his first speech in America, Mr. Parnell still spoke of distress 
 as only being " imminent." Mr. Ives himself, who had seen the condition of 
 things in Western Ireland, said that not until December, 1879, had there been 
 " much talk of distress." The testimony of Dr. McCormack, Bishop of 
 ■Galway, was to the same effect. 
 
 Mr. Parnell, Sir Henry James continued, did send relief money from 
 America ; but relief was not the purpose of his mission. Mr. Parnell went 
 to America "to enlist the sympathies of a certain class of men." " By that 
 time he must have known them full well," for had not Mr. Davitt already laid 
 the League foundations in America, and secured the support of the Irish 
 "Nationalists" (as the Fenians were called up to 1879)? The "combina- 
 tion," exclaimed Sir Henry James, in his most emphatic manner, "had been 
 made," the army had its "two camps" (the open and the secret), and Mr. 
 Parnell went to America to see the chiefs of this, the New Departure. Mr. 
 Parnell went to America "to do the best he could for the new organization," 
 which, up to the time of his departure from Ireland, had held only sixty-eight 
 meetings and founded thirty local branches. According to Mr. Ives's narrative, 
 Mr. Parnell had said, " We cannot prevent all tenants from paying ; " some of 
 them are "cowards." Here Sir Henry James, suddenly stopping, exclaimed 
 with a gesture of indignation, " Cowards if they discharged the duties of their 
 contract !" "Pressure must be brought to bear on such people," was the 
 next expression quoted from the interview ; " that was how crime came," was 
 Sir Henry's comment. Still drawing upon the Ives-Parnell interview, he 
 cited Mr. Parnell's statement that, as the aim of the League was revolu- 
 tionarj', secret conspiracy was no less useful than open agitation. " Did not 
 all this point to the influence of Devoy and the others who were admittedly 
 forming a treasonable conspiracy?" And who were the persons whom Mr. 
 Parnell met in America ? John Devoy, an ex-convict ; Augustine Ford, a 
 skirmisher ; Breslin, Carroll, and O'Meagher Condon, who has already been 
 described in the evidence as ' ' one of the released prisoners in connection with 
 the murder of Sergeant Brett." Mr. Parnell's tour through America was, 
 added Sir Henry James, arranged by those men or men of their stamp. 
 
 Upon this Sir Henry James mentioned Major Le Caron, alias Dr. Beach, 
 
330 Tuesday] Diary of [Nov. 5. 
 
 who in his evidence stated that Mr. ParneH's tour was arranged by the 
 Clan-na-Gael chiefs. Major Le Caron, seated in his quiet corner near the 
 door, must have been agreeably surprised at the eloquent defence of him 
 which Sir Plenry James now poured forth with all his abundant resource of 
 speech, tone, and gesture. Making a passing reference to the hard things that 
 had been said about Le Caron in court and outside it, he said it was only due 
 to Le Caron that he should say something in his defence. 
 
 Here are some passages from Sir Henry's apology for Major Le Caron : — 
 
 It is due, I think, to that man, after what has occurred, that something should be said of 
 him, and 1 say it openly on his behalf. j\Iy lords, who is this man, on whose evidence much 
 depends in this case, on \\hom I have to ask you to rely, whose word I ask you to accept ? 
 As far as I know, that man's character, apart from anything that took place in America in 
 connection with his conduct towards the Clan-na-Gael, is unimpeached. . . . ]\lr. Davitt used 
 some language which to those who did not follow him closely would appear to impute that 
 Le Caron had been drummed out of his regiment. Those words have been misunderstood. 
 . . .He joined in the American war between the North and the South. He attained dis- 
 tinction whilst serving in the army, in which he attained the rank of major. Shortly after 
 the war came to an end he learnt, by communication with a Fenian, of the intended attack 
 upon Canada. It was a treasonable attack upon an outlying portion of the Queen's domi- 
 nions, and against men who had taken no part in the misrule, if there had been misrule 
 according to the view of anj' man, in Ireland. And Le Caron, who was true to his allegiance 
 to this country, naturally communicated what he learnt. . . . And for twenty years that man 
 has held his life in his own hand. He never could have had one moment's security, one 
 moment of certain repose. One letter miscarried, one person unfaithful to his trust in the 
 Post Office, one accident any hour occurring, and that man's death in a moment was as 
 certain as any person's death must be as the ultimate result of life. An attack has been 
 made upon him by those who personally have appeared in this case, and I suppose that the 
 attack must be concentrated upon this, that he took a promissory- oath of secrecy. I ask, 
 on whose behalf is it that complaint is made ? Is it made on behalf of the men who were 
 thus plotting, those assassins who had not the courage to disclose themselves and whO' 
 required the secrecy only for the purpose of avoiding the punishment which thej^ knew would 
 follow detection, those men who, as enemies of the human race, as the lowest and most 
 degraded beings that could exist, were plotting destruction of human life by dynamite — are 
 these the men on whose behalf the appeal is to be made that honour has not been maintained 
 between them and the man who was pledged to secrecj' ? . . . What has he been ? Merelj' a 
 detective acting on behalf of his country with a view to secure the safety of innocent, unpro- 
 tected subjects of the Queen — unprotected, that is to say, in any other way against the: 
 machinations of these assassins. If a detective brings a criminal to justice, the community 
 applaud him ; they praise the exertions of a man who apprehends the criminal after the 
 crime has been committed. Why, then, should the conduct of this man be condemned ? . . ► 
 There are some observations made by m^- learned friend Sir Charles Russell to which I must 
 refer. I do not suppose, however, that my learned friend meant exactly what he said. If he 
 did, I am sure he had not the facts of the case fulty in his mind. He said : " Here we have 
 a man about whose odious profession I will not waste breath in talking. Surely the state of 
 societj' has something faulty in it when the employment of such a man as Le Caron can be^ 
 defended or can be necessarj-. His life was a living lie. He was worming himself into the 
 confidence of men presumably honest, however mistaken in their views, only to make money 
 and to betray them." My learned friend says that the state of society must be faulty that 
 excuses the employment of such men. Well, I first ask who employed Le Caron ? He has 
 been emploj-ed since 1867. Twenty years have run since he has been engaged in this employ- 
 ment, during which period he has sent home statements of what he has learnt by way of 
 warning to the representatives of the English Government. If he has been paid it has been 
 with the acquiescence, if not by the very hands, of English statesmen. During those twenty 
 years, Ministers of State, men of high honour, unblemished reputation, acting up to the best 
 of their judgment, and seeking to protect their country, were asking from him and receiving 
 from him the results of his inquiries in America. Does mj- learned friend attack these men, 
 some of whom have been his colleagues and associates in the administration of the countrj-'s- 
 affairs? What would be said of a statesman, indeed of any human being, who, being told, 
 " Through such a man you can obtain information as to how a contemplated raid upon 
 Canada is to be carried out, and as to a plan for blowmg up the public buildings of London,, 
 including the House of Commons itself when the representatives of the nation are actually in 
 session " — I wonder what would be said of a statesman who should reply, " No ; we will run 
 the risk of the execution of these acts, involving, as thej- must, a deplorable loss of life, and 
 we will run the risk because honour must be kept with the gentry- who are devising them." 
 Men who should give such a reply would be accomplices, almost participators, in the dreadful 
 deeds that would be perpetrated. 
 
 Devoy, Breslin, Carroll, and the rest who were alleged to have arranged Mv^ 
 
Wednesday] the Parncll Commission. [Nov. 6. 331 
 
 Parnell's tour, were, said Sir Henry, Clan-na-Gael members. And the Clan 
 was identical with or associated with the I. R. B. Devoy, Breslin, and Carroll 
 were Skirmishers, and from the Skirmishers', or murder, Fund came, said Sir 
 Henry James, the ^480 to Mr. Davitt, which INIr. Davitt subsequently repaid 
 out of his own pocket. The payment, said Sir Henry, was published in The 
 Irish IVojiifs published statement of accounts. There were three results from 
 Mr. Parnell's tour, said Sir Henry James : League funds, The Irish World 
 alliance, and the foundation of the American branch of the Land League. In 
 discussing these three results Sir Henry James traversed familiar and well- 
 trodden ground. Sir Henry James made much of the Troy meeting, at which 
 somebody, mounting the platform, gave Mr. Parnell a subscription of "five 
 dollars for bread " and " twenty for lead." Sir Henry James insisted upon it 
 that the words were meant literally, and that the cheers of the American 
 audience in which they were first uttered, and of the Irish audiences where they 
 were repeated, showed they were accepted literally. This view of them was 
 rejected contemptuously by Mr. Parnell himself when in the witness-box. Mr. 
 Parnell explained that the word "lead " was meant as a figure of speech ; that 
 the five dollars were given to the distress fund, and the twenty dollars to the 
 political organization fund, both which funds had just been started by Mr. 
 Parnell in the States. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTIETH DAY. 
 
 November 6. 
 
 Most of to-day's instalment of Sir Henry James's speech dealt with the action 
 of the Land League in Ireland during the year 1880. But before coming to 
 this important subject Sir Henry James had a little more to say about Mr. 
 Davitt's tour in America. In Kansas, September, 1880, said Sir Henry 
 James, Mr. Davitt had spoken to the effect that Ireland must be kept in a state 
 of unsettlement until landlordism was done away with. "This speech," said 
 Sir Henry James, " I have always regarded as one of great importance." Here 
 is a portion of it, quoted by Sir Henry James : — 
 
 We have, as you have ah-eady been told, declared an unceasing war against landlordism — 
 not a war to call on our people to shoulder the rifle and go out in open field and settle the 
 question thS.t is now agitating Ireland, although I am not opposed to a settlement of that 
 nature providing I could see a chance of success. 
 
 And just before he returned to Ireland from this American visit, Mr. Davitt 
 had declared that Irish lands must run to waste sooner than that grabbers 
 should have them. This was said in a speech at Virginia City. From this 
 speech Sir Henry James quoted the following extract : — 
 
 In 1847 there was no public sentiment, such as now exists, and many well-to-do Irish 
 farmers and tradesmen, as well as English speculators, aided the landlords hy biddingfor the 
 land from which tenants were evicted. There is none of this competition for land this time. 
 There are not four cases in Ireland to-day where a farm has been occupied bj- a neighbour 
 when the tenant was turned out. The bj'e-laws of the Irish Land League declare that no 
 person who bids for the land or cattle of a tenant evicted for inability to pay rent shall be 
 admitted to the League, and that no matter how many farmers are evicted, the land shall 
 remain untenanted until the system shall be abolished. No sale of goods shall be effected and 
 no land tenanted after eviction. 
 
 War upon the landgrabber as a means of starving out the landlord garrison — 
 that was the implication in this part of Sir Henry's address. 
 
 Throughout this American tour, said Sir Henry, ]\Ir. Davitt was in touch 
 
332 Wednesday] Diary of [Nov. 6. 
 
 with the Extremists. Part of this time, too, Mr. rarncll was in America. He 
 returned to Ireland in March, 1880. So that from Octol^er, 1 879, to March, 
 1880, the chief League leaders were not very' active in Ireland. A little later 
 in his speech Sir Henry showed that neither the leaders nor the League itself 
 became active until the autumn of 1880. As for the earlier months — the last 
 months of 1879 — and the first of 1880, they were, to summarize Sir Henry's 
 statement as briefly as possible, spent in preparation for the combined action 
 of Leaguers, L R. B. 's, and American revolutionists. The I. R. B., said Sir 
 Henry James, was still at work in these earlier months. iSlx. Matt. Harris had 
 said in his evidence that in 1879 the Irish peasants were supplied with the arms 
 which 'Mr. James O'Kelly and others had procured for distribution throughout 
 the country. " vSo that in 1879-80 " we find " a dormant peasant class in pos- 
 session of" guns and sword bayonets ; and "all this was known to Mr. Davitt, 
 to Patrick Egan, and to Brennan." It was in these circumstances, continued. 
 Sir Henry James, that the O'Donoghue gave one or two addresses at Killarney. 
 The district, according to jNIr. Leonard's testimony, had been peaceful up to 
 that date. But after it, the district became disturbed. 
 
 Mr. Parnell returned to Ireland on the 20th of March, 1880. He landed at 
 Cork, and there, said Sir Heniy James, he was received by a deputation of 
 Fenians, who memorialized him to the effect that it was hopeless to look for 
 redress of Irish grievances from Parliamentary action. The members of the 
 deputation intimated that this being the case, they would take no part in the 
 impending Parliamentary elections. And for the first time, said Sir Henry 
 James, Land League money was spent upon electioneering purposes. This 
 use of Land League money was a contravention of the seventh rule of the Land 
 League. Yet a sum of two thousand pounds was given by Mr. Egan for 
 electioneering work. iSIr. Parnell had said that he thought the seventh rule 
 had been rescinded ; but Sir Henry James had been unable to discover any 
 trace of such change in the constitution of the League. This showed that the 
 direction of the League w^as left to a large extent in Mr. Egan's hands — a point 
 to which Sir Henry James attached considerable importance. 
 
 The League, said Sir Henry James, was left in the hands of Egan and 
 Brennan when in May of that year (1880) Mr. Davitt went back again to 
 America. And how did the Leaguers conduct the agitation during those 
 months of May, June, July, August ? Sir Henry James proceeded to show how, 
 by giving extracts from, or otherwise indicating speeches by Brennan, Boyton, 
 Quinn, Sheridan, and the renowned " Scrab." All these speeches, said Sir 
 Heniy James, were " eminently suited " for the promotion of Mr. Davitt's 
 policy of keeping Ireland in a state of " unsettlement." Political separation 
 and destruction of landlordism w-ere the themes of these speeches. 
 
 In the month of August, 1880, there came about the Fenian raid for arms 
 upon a vessel near Cork. From this vessel, named the Juno, about forty cases 
 of firearms, and a large number of cutlasses, were stolen by the raiders. Said 
 Sir Henry James : — 
 
 The incident which I wish to mention is the action of the Cork Land League. These gentle- 
 men, I have no doubt, had read the open programme, and they had hstened to vvords which 
 no doubt from time to time were used by the Land League leaders as to the policy of consti- 
 tutional action. The Cork Land League, therefore, thought raiding for arms did not exactly 
 come within their idea of constitutional action, not finding any mention of any such action in 
 the open programme. Believing that they would be acting in accordance with the wishes of 
 the Land League by condemning such raiding for arms, they passed the following resolution : — 
 
 "That we deeply regret that a robbery- of useless old firearms has taken place, that we con- 
 demn lawlessness in anj- shape, and that we believe the occurrence in Passage must have 
 been effected by those who desire to see a renewal of the Coercion Acts inflicted upon this 
 country-, and who wish to give the Government good value for their secret service mone5\" 
 
 But, said Sir Henr}^ James, this resolution was followed by a meeting of the 
 central body at Dublin. At this meeting Mr. Dillon presided, and Mr. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 6. 333 
 
 Brennan made a speech to the effect that the Cork branch had meddled with 
 matters "outside its sphere." "We do not want," said Mr. Brennan, "to 
 put ourselves in antagonism to other bodies in Ireland," and "We disclaim the 
 action of the Cork branch." The chairman, said Sir Henry James, approved 
 this speech. If this, said Sir Henry James, was the attitude of the central 
 branch towards the lawbreakers in County Cork, " what must have been its 
 attitude towards the crimes with which we shall have to deal ?" Mr. Dillon, 
 he continued, went to Cork, and there Mr. Dillon declared that the League 
 could entertain "no hostility to other bodies who had the good of Ireland at 
 heart." 
 
 There was then, said Sir Henry James, an entire reorganization of this 
 unfortunate body, the Cork branch of the League. In a minute or two Sir 
 Henry James made dexterous use of this incident. He was criticizing Mr. 
 Parnell's account of the attack made upon him and his party by alleged 
 Fenians, near Blarney, in October, 1880, two months after the raid. The 
 assailants took two of Mr. Parnell's party as hostages. Mr. Parnell, it will 
 be remembered, gave this as an instance of Fenian hostility to the Parlia- 
 mentary movement. But, said Sir Henry James, the two men taken as 
 hostages were Mr. Cronin and Mr. O'Brien, the Cork leaguers whose de- 
 nunciation of the arms exploit was repudiated by Mr. Dillon and Mr. Brennan. 
 
 Sir Henry James now came to consider the state of W^estern Ireland in the 
 last three months of 1880. In the first nine months, he said, the Land League 
 had made but little progress. But after the return of the Irish Parhamentary 
 members to Ireland, in September, the League " spread like wildfire," and 
 crime advanced with it. Sir Charles Russell had argued that " distress " pro- 
 duced crime, observed Sir Henry James. (A little later the President remarked 
 that Sir Charles Russell had used the word "eviction.") Sir Henry James now 
 declared that he would prove that distress did not produce crime, and " even 
 at the risk " of boring those who had come into court " only for amusement," 
 he would do it with statistics. He undertook to show that no crmie broke 
 out in localities where distress was present and the League non-existent ; but 
 that it did break out in the very localities where prosperity and the League co- 
 existed. He rapidly summarized the Irish Poor Law Board reports of four 
 unions in each of the four counties — Mayo, Galway, Kerry, Cork — for 1879-80, 
 sixteen unions in all, and in doing this he handed their lordships a map of 
 distressed Ireland, showing that the distress was most acute along the narrow 
 fringe of coast, and that it gradually diminished towards a line drawn from 
 north to south, and separating nineteen western counties from the rest of the 
 island. Within the narrow fringe, said Sir Henry James, crimelessness and 
 distress co- existed, according to the reports of the local inspectors. 
 
 To show that crime was provoked by Land League activity, Sir Henry 
 James quoted, first, the case of the murder of the land agent, Mr. Feerick, 
 near Ballinrobe, in Mayo, June, 1880. Shot in June, Mr. Feerick lingered 
 until August, when he died. Mr. Feerick was shot on the 29th of Jime ; and it 
 was only nine days before the murder that P. J. Gordon made, in the neigh- 
 bourhood, a speech in which he said "Away with land-robbers," "it will be 
 better for you (the tenants) to lose your blood, like Allen, Larkin, and 
 O'Brien." And this same Gordon, while Mr. Feerick was still lingering, 
 made a speech in which he said that Feerick had " evicted a poor widow and 
 her orphans." There was not," said Sir Henry James, "one word of regret 
 for Feerick." 
 
 Scrab Nally, also, five or six days after the murder, remarked at a meeting 
 that " more good had been done that week than by all the speeches," for "a 
 landlord had been shot in Ballinrobe." Sir Henry James next instanced the 
 case of young J\Ir. Boyd, of Wexford, who had been murdered, it was said, 
 because his father had been harsh to his tenants. The murder was perpetrated 
 
334 1Vcd]icsday] Diary of [Nov. 6. 
 
 in August, iSSo. What, asked Sir Henry James, had 'Mr. Parnell publicly 
 said in condemnation of this crime? Only that shooting was "entirely 
 unnecessary and prejudicial where there was a suitable organization among the 
 tenants themselves." Was it to be understood, Sir Henry James asked, that 
 where there was no sufficient organization murder was allowable? " Call that 
 speech a denunciation of crime ! " Sir HeYiry James exclaimed; "from that 
 time forward crime spread like wildfire." 
 
 Sir Henry James next referred to the murder of Lord Mountmorres, whom, 
 after the murder, and at a public meeting attended by prominent leaguers, 
 James Redpath described as " an infamous rascal." Messrs. Sexton, Sheridan, 
 Boyton, Egan, were present, said Sir Henry James ; all that Mr. Sexton, in 
 the witness-box, said about Redpath's speech was that he scarcely thought 
 it constitutional. And lastly, in July, 1880, there was the case of Downey, 
 who received the death wound intended for Mr. Hutchins, and in respect to 
 which Mr. Biggar was reported as having, in a public speech, objected to 
 firing shots that missed their mark. 
 
 And now Sir Henry James came to his most striking piece of statistics. 
 Even the idlers who came to be ' ' amused, " and who, as Sir Henry James 
 observed in his politely ironical way, might prefer something rather more 
 sensational — even they were interested in the recital. He gave figures about 
 what he called "ripe" counties— z.<?., the counties in which the League first 
 took root, and in which its influence was soonest and most widely felt. They 
 were ISIayo, Galway, Roscommon, Sligo. In Mayo, crimes rose from 25 in 
 1878 to 178 in 1879 ; in Galway, from 22 to 179 ; in Roscommon, from 12 to 
 35 ; in Sligo, from 15 to 53. (The Land League was formally established in 
 Dublin on the 21st of October, 1879.) Then he took four " unripe " counties, 
 Keriy, Limerick, Wexford, Tipperaiy. In Kerry the advance was from 5 in 
 1878 to 13 in 1879; in Limerick, from 22 to 27; in Wexford there was a 
 decrease from 5 to 4 ; in Tipperaiy an increase, from 12 in 1S78 to 28 in 1879. 
 In these " unripe " counties the League did not take root until dates more or 
 less late in 1880. Having thus compared 1878 with 1879, Sir Henry James 
 proceeded to compare 1879 with 1880. He followed the order already given : 
 and he said that the increments in the " ripe " counties were from 178 to 343 ; 
 from 179 to 402; from 35 to 43; from 53 to 71. In other words, the four 
 " ripe " counties produced 445 outrages in 1879, and 859 in 1880. Now for 
 the " unripe" ones. Their crime list rose, in Kerry from 13 in 1879 to 298 in 
 1880 ; in Limerick, from 27 to 1S6 ; in Wexford, from 4 to 56 ; in Tipperary, 
 from 28 to 106. In other words, the total for the four " unripe " counties rose 
 from 72 in 1879 to 646 in 1880. Then came what Sir Henry James clearly 
 regarded as a decisive argimient, namely, that the vast bulk of the increase in 
 crime in the unripe counties took place after September — that is, in the last 
 three months of 18S0. He had already dated the full activity of the League, 
 and the rapid increase in crime, from the return of the Irish members to Ireland 
 in September from their Parliamentary duties. For instance, said Sir Henry 
 James, there were only eight crimes in Wexford during the first nine months of 
 1880, but in the next three there were 48 — making the total of 56 for the whole 
 year. Taking the whole four "unripe" counties, there were only 148 crimes 
 in them during the first nine months of 1880, and 498 during the last three, 
 making 646, the total for the year. But for the "ripe " counties in 1880, the 
 proportions were 395 for the first nine months, and 464 for the last three, 
 making the total of 859 for the whole year. What produced this crop of 
 •crime ? Sir Heniy asked. " It was not distress ; " " and it was not eviction ; " 
 ■** the politicians were at work." 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 7. 335 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIRST DAY. 
 
 November 7. 
 
 Ox the previous day Sir Henry J^nies claimed to have shown that after the 
 return of the Irish members in September, 1880, from ParHanient, crime and 
 League influence increased simuhaneously. He now tried to iUustrate this 
 proposition by the history of the boycott — " a new procedure," which Mr. 
 Parnell first advocated seriously on the 19th of September, 1S80, but which 
 Sir Henry James maintained, was advocated by Mr. Davitt in the beginning 
 of the year. Mr, Davitt had at that date denounced as "traitors" to their 
 country persons who took farms from which others had been evicted for non- 
 payment of just rent. And in this speech of September 19, 1880, Mr. Parnell 
 had called such persons "moral lepers," and said that to leave grabbers 
 "severely alone" was "a more Christian and charitable way" than to 
 "shoot " them. Mr. Sexton had said that boycotting, being at first a purely 
 local growth, was subsequently recommended, under limitations, by the League 
 chiefs. 
 
 But Sir Henry James had failed to discover any limitations. He found no 
 " limitation " in Mr. Harris's partridge speech, nor in a speech of Mr. Dillon's 
 in October, 1880, which meant, according to Sir Henry James, that the only 
 limitation was the fear of detection. Mr. Parnell's speech was, as already 
 said, delivered on the 19th of September. On the 22nd, Captain Boycott was 
 subjected to the "new procedure," with one result — among others — that a new 
 verb (or substantive) was added to the English vocabulary. I wish, said Sir 
 Henry James, that I could accept Archbishop Walsh's definition of boycotting 
 as "exclusive dealing." There were in the Irish movement persons more 
 influential than the Archbishop. Mr. Biggar was more influential than 
 his Grace. Sir Hemy refused to take Mr. Biggar at INIr. Biggar's modest 
 self-estimate ; and Mr. Biggar had said that every kind of boycotting 
 which stopped short of personal violence was allowable. Here Sir 
 Henry James made the objection that Mr. Biggar's boycotting implied the 
 effects of physical violence ; and he enumerated, though not at great length, 
 the dreary list of species of the boycott — refusing to sell provisions, refusing 
 coffins, boycotting schools, &c. — with which readers of the Commission's 
 proceedings were only too familiar months ago. 
 
 Mr. Parnell, he continued, had attributed to the Lords' rejection of the 
 Compensation Bill the " wild-fire " like spread of crime at and from the last 
 months of 1880 ; but Sir Henry James had failed to discover in the popular 
 League speeches of the period more than nine instances in which the rejection 
 was even referred to. If that was not the cause, what was it? Sir Henry 
 James asked. He answered his own question by giving a summary of the 
 utterances of the four Land League organizers, Messrs. Harris, Sheridan, 
 Boyton, and O'Kelly, all of whom, with the exception of Boyton, were 
 Fenians. "Well did they do their work of unsettling Ireland!" he ex- 
 claimed. Then he paused to deliver a eulogium upon Mr. Matt. Harris. 
 He believed that Mr. Harris had been depreciated by Sir Charles Russell, as 
 "not intellectually a strong man." But, after what had been heard from Mr. 
 Harris in the witness-box, after "the beautiful composition " which Mr. Harris 
 wrote in praise of his dead friend, " some of us," said Sir Henry James, must 
 have thought that Mr. Matt. Harris " was a man of rare ability." Yet even a 
 man of Mr. Harris's character — fine as it was in many respects — did not hesi- 
 tate to speak of shooting landlords like partridges in September. Sir Henry 
 James admitted that Mr. Harris had explained this speech of his ; but Mr. 
 Harris, in a subsequent speech, compared landlords to man-eating tigers — and 
 
336 TImrsday] Diary of [Nov, 7. 
 
 that at a time when Boyton was denouncing "grabbers" as "double-dyed 
 traitors," no less odious than informers. 
 
 Sir Henry maintained that the circular issued in December, i88o, by Mr. 
 Parnell and the Land League leaders was in itself a proof that they were not 
 honestly desirous that crime should cease. Writing threatening letters and 
 mutilating cattle were the only crimes condemned in the circular. Yet, 
 according to his own admission, said the learned counsel, Mr. Parnell had 
 confessed that he was appalled when, late in i88o, he was made aware of the 
 prevalence of crime in Ireland. "I wonder," said Sir Henry, "what the 
 organizers inferred when they read this document ? " 
 
 Still, Sir Henry J'^^^ies expressed his surprise at Mr. Parnell's ignorance, in 
 1880, of the state of things in Ireland. Mr. Parnell's colleagues were all about 
 the country ; how was it. Sir Heniy asked, that the first intimation of the pro- 
 gress of crime was first made known to him by Mr. Davitt, who was all the 
 while, not in Ireland, but in America? " I submit to you," said Sir Henry 
 James, referring to the December circular — "I submit to you that a more 
 wicked document, one more inciting to crime than this circular, could never 
 have been drawn up by any one. Mi. Davitt says he drafted it, and I venture 
 to think that it must have been drawn up by him in somewhat different 
 language, and that it was settled by some one else. There are two descriptions 
 of crime, one of which has never been found to be affected by Irish agitators, 
 and the other of which has been condemned, and could not help being con- 
 demned, by every class, so far as I know, of those who belonged to the Fenian 
 body. The first description of crime is that of threatening letters, which go to 
 swell the records of crime, and frequently do not produce any effect. The 
 second description of crime is one which a generous race must hold in abhor- 
 rence, and which alienated the sympathies of persons in England — that of 
 maiming cattle. These two crimes are useless, and worse than useless, to those 
 who desire that the movement in which they are engaged shall stand well in 
 public opinion. This circular, so far as Mr. Parnell is concerned, is the only 
 step he took to stop crime." Sir Henry quoted the circular, but it is too long 
 for reproduction here. 
 
 Throughout a large portion of the day's instalment of his speech Sir Henry 
 James was insisting that the leaders of the Land League must have known 
 how crime was progressing. On the 28th of January, 1 881, jNIr. Gladstone 
 virtually accused them in the House of Commons, for had he not said that 
 "crime dogged the footsteps of the Land League" with "fatal precision"? 
 Sir Heniy seized hold of an expression of INIr, Davitt's. Mr. Davitt had said 
 in the box that in all his denunciations of grabbing he had never "named" any- 
 body : that he would be sorry if ever he had done anything of the kind. But 
 " why should he be sorry," exclaimed Sir Henr}' James, if at that time the 
 "naming" of persons was not an unsafe thing to do ? Sir Henr}' James had 
 present to his mind a state of public irritation, of readiness for outrage, which 
 the Land Leaguers should have tried to allay. 
 
 It will have been seen that Mr. Harris is one of the two or three Nationalist 
 witnesses who have produced the most favourable — or least unfavourable ; 
 which ? — impression upon Sir Henry James's mind. Sir Henry James's 
 eulogium of Mr. Harris has been referred to above. It will be remembered 
 that Sir Charles Russell qualified his observations on Mr. Harris's comparative 
 lack of intellectual strength by saying that in recent years, and owing to severe 
 illness, Mr. Harris's faculties had been somewhat impaired, but that at one 
 time he was a man of considerable, not to say remarkable, ability, considering 
 his education and absence of facilities in life. Here, then, is a portion of Sir 
 Henry James's estimate of Mr. Harris : — 
 
 That was the view Sir Charles Russell, upon the instructions of his clients, presented to 
 you in relation to Mr. jNIatthew Harris. Well, of course, I know nothing of Mr. Matthew 
 
Tuesday] the Pavnell Commission, [Nov. 12. 337 
 
 Harris, or very little, except that view of my learned friend Sir C. Russell. But INIr. 
 Matthew Harris came into the witness-box, and I cannot tell how far anything I am saying 
 will meet with your lordships' sanction, but some of us who saw Mr. ISIatthew Harris, an 
 old man now, stuggling with a severe illness, standing in that witness-box, and — may I use 
 the term ?^bravely giving his evidence, when we heard him express his views as he did, 
 when we read his writings, my lords, some of us thought that the views expressed by Sir 
 Charles Russell never could have been the views of men who knew him well. I am sure JNlr. 
 Harris's friends would not object tpmy referring to the fact that his life has been a life 
 without much opportunity of acquiring knowledge, and yet when we heard him express 
 himself as he did, and when we read that beautiful composition, the speech which he 
 intended to deliver over the grave of a dead Fenian, there were some of us who thought, 
 at least, that he must have been a man of rare ability, and that he had been endowed with 
 such a manner of thought and such a power of expression that the truest thinking man, and 
 even the most polished scholar, might have regarded him as a man of singular faculties. He 
 stood before us here and gave his evidence in a way that was calculated to evoke a sympa- 
 thetic feeling ; and it was with some such feeling that I have tried to find some excuse for Mr. 
 Harris's utterances. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SECOND DAY. 
 
 November 12. 
 
 Sir Henry James spent most of the day in combating Sir Charles Russell's 
 proposition that Irish agrarian crime sprang from three causes — distress, secret 
 association, and eviction. But in the tirst place he disposed of the remaining 
 portion of his own argument that the Irish Fenians, the American United 
 Brethren (or Clan-na-Gael), and the Skirmishers were correlated bodies of one 
 and the same organization. O'Donovan Rossa's connection with the Skirmish- 
 ing Fund came to an early end ; but that, said Sir Henry, w'as because his 
 fello\v-Skirmishers objected to his lack of reticence. "So they got rid of him." 
 " But the dynamite policy remained." That was all that Sir Henry James 
 would concede to Mr. Davitt's outspoken and uncomplimentary description of 
 O'Donovan Rossa as " a blatant ass" and "a cowardly ruffian." Though 
 Rossa was the founder of the Skirmishing Fund (1876), Ford was, in Sir Henry 
 James's estimation, the man most responsible for the " hideous policy " which 
 it supported. It was Ford who, in December, 1883, founded the Emergency 
 Fund for plaguing England "with all the plagues of Egypt," for " scourging 
 her by day," and " terrorizing her by night." Patrick Ford, said Sir Henry 
 James, asked for God's blessing on ^Ir. Davitt, on Mr. Parnell, on Archbishop 
 Croke, and the rest, but declared that their efforts would be unavailing without 
 force. Then Sir Henry drew a pathetic picture of dynamitards trembhng in 
 the dock w^hile the man most responsible for their crimes was safe in New York. 
 Sir Henry James was astonished at jNIr. Davitt's description of Mr. Ford as a 
 Christian and a philanthropist. 
 
 As proof, or illustration, of his position that the American U.B., and the 
 Irish I.R.B., were practically identical, Sir Henry James cited the programme 
 of the U.B., and mentioned that the fact of Mr. Davitt's being a Fenian 
 Supreme Councillor \vas Mr. Davitt's passport to U.B. secret meetings. The 
 U.B. amended programme of 1877 contained these heads — (i) Total separation 
 of Ireland from Great Britain. (2) Establishment of an Irish Republic. (3) 
 Unceasing preparation for an armed Irish insurrection. (4) Non-interference in 
 parliamentary politics. Besides his inability to hold his tongue there was, 
 according to Sir Heniy James, another reason for cutting Rossa's connection 
 w^ith the Skirmishing Fund : O'Donovan Rossa would destroy all vessels under 
 the British flag, even if there were Americans and American- Irish on board 
 them. Once more, though Patrick Ford had no official connection with the 
 
 23 
 
^^S Tuesday] Diary of [Nov. 12 
 
 Skirmishing Fund [it was Augustine Ford who had] he subscribed fifty dollars 
 to it, and expended three hundred more in circulars. 
 
 Having dealt last week with the first of Sir Charles Russell's explanations of 
 Irish outrages — distress ; Sir Henry James now came to the second — secret 
 association. From secret societies he excluded the Fenian body, which, he 
 held, was only an advanced wing of the revolutionary army. What was the 
 meaning, he asked, of Mr. Davitt's intimation to Mr. Parnell, some nine years 
 ago, that the commission of outrages in Ireland was alienating the Americans 
 from the Land League ? Why should that be so, if the outrages were the work 
 of the League's enemies ? Sir Henry James then declared that in all the speeches 
 and resolutions of the Land Leaguers there was not a word attributing the com- 
 mission of outrages to secret societies. The speeches, he even maintained, 
 proceeded upon " an entirely different theory." Sir Henry James declined to 
 regard as secret societies the sporadic gangs of young men who committed 
 moonlighting outrages. But he considered that Mr. Dillon's appeals to the 
 young men of Ireland might render them none the less dangerous. And then 
 Sir Henry James turned to the evidence of one of Sir Charles Russell's own 
 witnesses, namely. Father O'Donovan, of Tulla, in Clare, to show that these 
 outrage-mongering young men were the " secret police " of the Land League, 
 Father O'Donovan had taken the unique course of communicating with the 
 police ; and, according to Sir Henry James's reading of the priest's evidence, 
 the priest required policemen to protect him against possibly his own parish- 
 ioners. The gist of Sir Henry James's argument was this : — All the heads of 
 families in the parish were leaguers ; with these heads of families lived the 
 sons — in the ordinary one or two-roomed cabins of rural Ireland ; "the coming 
 in and going out " (the priest's phrase) of these young men " would certainly 
 be known " to their fathers, and " the moonlighters were mostly the sons " of 
 those small farmers. Father O'Donovan, said Sir Henr}^ James, did not blame 
 secret societies ; "but with the full knowledge of the district and his parish- 
 ioners, he dissolved the League. He knew what was taking place, and it was 
 this reverend gentleman who stands amongst his fellows as a bright example of 
 braver}-." Father O'Donovan was President of the Tulla branch of the Land 
 League. Sir Henry James also quoted Mr. Matt. Harris's evidence in the 
 wntness-box, to the effect that there were no secret societies during the period 
 under discussion. 
 
 Coming to Sir Charles Russell's third explanation of crime — evictions. Sir 
 Henr}' James said that in the four years of distress from 1849 to 1852 there 
 were 58,423 evictions and 4,245 agrarian crimes. In the four years from 1879 
 to 1882 there were 12,000 evictions and 9,000 agrarian crimes. How was it 
 that it took about fourteen times as many evictions to produce one agrarian 
 crime in the former period as in the latter ? 
 
 Sir Henry James's statistics were detailed, but the above brief summary and 
 question will explain the general drift of them. Sir Henry James next struck 
 out a new line of argument, to the effect that the evictions of the Land League 
 period were unlike those of preceding periods, inasmuch as they were the work, 
 not merely of landlords, but of the Land League itself. Evictions, he said, 
 were forced on the landlords as a means of starving them out. Evictions, 
 jcoupled with prevention of re-letting, would have that effect. So would the 
 stoppage of rent. 
 
 This brought him to the three no-rent manifestoes — Mr. Parnell's from 
 Kilmainham ; Mr. Egan's, of October, 1881 ; and T/ie Irish World's. He 
 laid particular stress upon Mr. Egan's, which directed that " the person " who 
 paid rent " should be \dsited with the severest sentence of social ostracism," and 
 that any person entering the Land Courts should be "cast out " " as a renegade 
 to his country and to the cause of his fellow-men." Sir Plenry James admitted 
 that Mr. Parnell in the witness-box described Egan's manifesto as " a condem- 
 
Wednesday'] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 13. 339 
 
 nable document ; " and then he proceeded to quote T/ie Irish World' s^ one 
 sentence of which declared that "he who acts the traitor in the hour of Ireland's 
 trial shall pay the penalty of his villainy." 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-THIRD DAY. 
 
 November 13. 
 
 .Sir Henry James began to-day by quoting the case of the informer Farraghei 
 in proof of his proposition that evictions were artificially brought about by the 
 leaguers — that is forced upon the landlords, even when tenants were willing to 
 pay. Informer Farragher had said that he was advised by Mr. Davitt and Mr. 
 J, W. Walsh, the organizer, not to pay ; that he had means of paying ; but 
 that he refused ; and that he was e\dcted in consequence. Mr. Davitt himself 
 had said, in the witness-box, "that he had no recollection of ever having 
 exchanged a single word with the man Farragher " ; and that, though he 
 occasionally advised the farmers as a body "not to pay except under certain 
 conditions," he had no recollection of ever having advised any single tenant to 
 withhold payment. But now Sir Henry James accepted Mr. Davitt" s " be- 
 coming caution," as he called it, as a reason for believing that informer , 
 Farragher' s story was correct. 
 
 Another illustration, as Sir Henry James regarded it, of this policy of 
 non-payment, he found in a letter of Miss Parnell's to The Freevian of 
 November, 1881, in which letter it was intimated that no help would be given 
 to evicted tenants w^ho intended to pay as soon as they could. All this. Sir 
 Henry James argued, was corroborated by the testimony of Captain Slack, a 
 Times witness, a sentence from w^hose evidence he quoted thus — " In those 
 large cases w^here you will see evictions are wholesale I am decidedly of 
 opinion that if it had not been for the National League and for the leaders and 
 Members of Parliament who took the thing in hand, the evictions would not 
 have taken place at all." 
 
 Sir Henry James next criticized the conduct of the League leaders, after Mr. 
 Forster's notice of motion (January, 1881) for the suspension of the Habeas 
 Corpus Act, and Mr. Gladstone's words about crime dogging the footsteps of 
 the Land League. Accepting this declaration as a warning, Mr. Egan went 
 off to Paris with the League books. Messrs. Harris, Sexton, T. D. Sullivan, 
 Dillon, Kettle, Louden, Brennan, O'Kelly, Healy, and Biggar, followed ; 
 when, according to Sir Henry James, they w^ould have been much better 
 employed in keeping Ireland quiet. For, said he, this single year, 1881, was 
 more fruitful of crime than even the four famine years put together (1849-1852). 
 Even when they did speak, Sir Henry complained, they did not utter a single 
 denunciation of crime during that year. 
 
 " But if they were silent for good, they were not silent for evil," upon which 
 observation Sir Henry James proceeded at great length to examine the 1881 
 oratory of ]Mr. Harris and Mr. Dillon, and to show how close it was, in point 
 of time, to the series of murders which followed its delivery. At a time when, 
 according to his own account, it was extremely dangerous to "name" any- 
 body, Mr. Harris was telling his hearers to keep away from "the wretch" 
 Kennedy, though, as he said in the wdtness-box, Mr. Harris did not think he 
 called Kennedy a " demon from hell " ; and he was also using some ungallant 
 language, as Sir Henry James called it, about Mrs. Blake, of Connemara. 
 " She-devil " was the ungallant expression, quoted by Sir Henry James, who 
 in his own use of language is a model of propriety. Sir Henry James scoffed 
 
340 ]Vednesday] Diary of [Nov. 13. 
 
 at the notion that crime was produced by distress. Then he fell foul of his 
 brother Q.C., Sir Charles Russell, for cutting down Shakespeare, and taking 
 liberties with the bard's punctuation. In his opening address Sir Charles 
 Russell quoted the first four lines of Romeo's little speech : — 
 
 Famine is in thy cheeks, 
 Need and oppression starveth in thine eyes, 
 Contempt and beggar^' hangs upon thy back ; 
 The world is not thy friend nor the world's law ; 
 The world affords no law to make thee rich ; 
 Then be not poor, but break it. 
 
 Sir Henry James, sticking up for Shakespeare and T/ie Times, complained that 
 the leader of the English Bar had put a full stop after *' law," and forgotten to 
 quote the last two lines. These last two lines, Sir Henr}' maintained, were 
 precisely applicable to the leaguers and all their works : and Sir Charles 
 Russell had missed the point of his own quotation. 
 
 We need not follow Sir Henry James's repetition of the threadbare, wretched 
 history of Galway murders in 1 88 1 ; except to say that he contended strongly 
 for the truth of the informer Mannion's story about the peculiarly cold-blooded, 
 savage crime, the murder of the Lydens, in April, i88i. The Land League, 
 said Sir Hemy James, was established in the Lydens' parish in November, 
 iSSo. In the first week of April, 1881, Mr. Harris delivered his violent 
 speeches there ; and on the 24th day of the month, Lyden the father was 
 killed, and Lyden the son wounded so grievously that he died in a month. 
 The fact that the local leaguers never held a meeting signified nothing to Sir 
 Henr}- James. It was enough for him that there were in the branch, besides 
 twelve committeemen, twenty collectors, or persons authorized to collect 
 subscriptions, that all the leaguers round about paid their subscription, and 
 that several of them used to assemble in the house of a widow Walsh, whose 
 two young sons were punished for the Lyden murder, the one on the scaftold, 
 the other by penal servitude for life. It will be remembered that Mr. Davitt^ 
 when in the witness-box, said that if ^Nlrs. Walsh, knowing her son's innocence, 
 preferred his death to a pardon as the reward of informing, Mrs. Walsh did a 
 noble deed. \Miat was this. Sir Henry James asked, but paying homage to 
 assassins ? It waS that kind of homage which led to the spread of crime. It 
 was not necessar}-, he said, to attribute this or that crime to this or that speech 
 or expression. It was the general encouragement to outrage which he de- 
 nounced. This general encouragement, he said, amounted to " direct proof of 
 a conspiracy among the persons who made violent speeches so to work up the 
 people that crime should be committed." 
 
 The next question upon which Sir Henry James asked the Court to come to 
 a conclusion favourable to the prosecution was the question of ]Mr. Parnell's 
 alleged message through Le Caron to the Clan-na-Gael in America. Sir 
 Henr}- James concentrated all his strength and ingenuity on the Le Caron 
 episodes. He recapitulated the old story of the Lobby inter\-iew between Le 
 Caron and ]Mr. Parnell, at which interview Mr. Parnell was reported to have 
 said that he had ceased to believe in anything except force as a cure for 
 Ireland's wrongs ; that he did not see why a successful revolution could not be 
 got tip in Ireland ; and that the Irish Fenians could be forced into line with 
 the Parliamentaiy party by the Irish- Americans threatening to withhold 
 supplies. 
 
 Sir Henry James maintained that ^Ir. Parnell's evidence on this question 
 fell short of a denial. He then answered two arguments of Sir Charles 
 Russell's. As for the argument that Le Caron never afterwards communicated 
 with Mr. Parnell, he reminded their lordships that Le Caron had said that he 
 had been requested to communicate with Egan. And as for the criticism that 
 
Thursday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 14. 341 
 
 Le Caron had never sought " to draw Mr. Parnell and Mr. Egan on," Sir 
 Henry J^mes pointed out that Le Caron only tried to detect crime, not to tempt 
 others to commit it in order that he might expose them. Sir Henry James 
 regarded Le Caron as a meritorious person, who only tried to undermine 
 plotters against the safety of England. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FOURTH DAY. 
 
 November 14. 
 
 Another witness has interrupted for a few minutes the steady flow of Sir 
 Henry James's interpretation of Anglo-American-Irish history. He is the 
 only witness who has appeared during the speech-making and concluding 
 portion of the inquiry; and it seems certain he is the last, for it is not supposed 
 the judges will call any witnesses on their own account. It has been a long 
 journey from the first witness, Bernard O'Malley, to the last (as he most 
 probably is), Mr. W. G. Simm, of the Old Broad Street centre of the National 
 Bank. 5lr. Simm was questioned, not by Sir Henry James, but by the Attorney- 
 General, who has been seldom heard of late. JNIr. Simm informed the Court 
 that all the branches of the National Bank, of which there were eighty-six, 
 sent in to the head office at Dublin, brief abstracts of all their accounts. He 
 could not give any particulars just then about the accounts of the persons 
 charged, but he promised to procure them. Exit Mr. Simm. 
 
 But Mr. Biggar was up on the instant, reminding the Court of the under- 
 standing that no accounts merely personal should be looked into, because, said 
 
 Mr. Biggar, " if they were, by some legerdemain on the part of Soames " 
 
 But ;Mr. Biggar was not allowed to finish his sentence. Sir James Hannen 
 quickly interrupted him. "No, no, Mr. Biggar ; don't use that word. You 
 must state your case without making offensive personal observations. " Mr. 
 Biggar then declared that accounts of a purely private character had been 
 examined. Sir Richard Webster quietly observed that he had never heard of 
 any such attempt. The President remarked that he thought that in that 
 respect ]\Ir. Biggar's side had been treated with great liberality. It was 
 arranged that Mr. Biggar should be present with Mr. Soames while Mr. 
 Cunynghame examined the accounts. And then Sir Henry James resumed the 
 thread of his interesting historico-critical review of the leaguers and all their 
 organizations, and all their newspapers, and all their works. 
 
 He began with the Parnellite Press. A " new weapon," he called it, with 
 w^hich the League, as soon as it had money enough, armed itself. It was a 
 triple weapon — T/ie Irishman, United Ireland, and The Irish World. To be 
 precise, the League supplied itself with the first two ; the third lent its aid, or, 
 as Sir Henry James would say, it took the League captive. Poor, old, 
 wretched Pigott. His name came up again, in connection with the sale of his 
 miserable Irishman, in July, 1881. Sir Henry James's description of the 
 position of The Irishman in the League organization was little more than a 
 repetition of what the Attorney-General said long ago. Sir H. James ran off 
 a string of specimens of its " abominable language " ; but he was careful to 
 remind their lordships, as also the journalists, that the adjective was not his, 
 but Archbishop Walsh's. The particular abominations which Sir Henry James 
 dwelt upon were The Irishman's commendatory references to the murderers Joe 
 Brady and Dan Curley. He refused to accept Mr. Parnell's explanation that 
 Pigott's Irishman was bought up in order that it might " die a natural death." 
 The purchasers of The Irishman, said Sir Henry James, had announced 
 
342 Thursday] Diary of [Nov. 14. 
 
 that there would be no deviation from its old principles. He was equally- 
 severe upon United Ireland. Mr. O'Brien, the editor, had published in it 
 letters in which the Phoenix Park murderers were described as "honest" 
 though "stern patriots" ; and yet, said Sir Henr)' James, Mr. O'Brien him- 
 self, when in the witness-box, admitted that the evidence against those accused 
 of the murders was overwhelming. There were, Sir Henry admitted, mode- 
 rately expressed articles in United Ireland : but there were also articles of an 
 entirely opposite character. In other w^ords, there were two sets of articles 
 because there was a moderate wing and an extreme wing of the Nationalist 
 army. Remembering that in his youth he had read a paper bearing the symbol 
 of an open eye. Sir Henry James suggested that United Ireland might 
 appropriately have adopted the symbol of two eyes, one shut, the other open — 
 but winking. How could it do that on paper ? 
 
 Having done with the newspapers, Sir Henry criticized the manner in 
 which the land legislation of i88i had been received by the Irish leaders. 
 The policy of the Land Act was, said Sir Henry James, a reconciliation 
 between landlord and tenant ; but the purpose of the League was to destroy 
 landlordism, and the new Act was used by the League leaders to bring about 
 that very result. That was the second head of the day's discourse. Under 
 the third head he criticized the manner in which, as he said, the leaguers 
 impeded the administration of justice — and especially their systematic defence 
 of prisoners. The League undertook, without making any preliminaiy inquiry, 
 to defend all prisoners accused of agrarian outrage ; and they did it in such a 
 way, Sir Henry James insisted, as to encourage the tenants to commit crime. 
 If, as he said, it was the case that secret societies committed the crimes, and 
 if these societies were hostile to the Land League, why should the League 
 have defended them ? He also quoted Islx. Parnell's evidence, to the effect 
 that in August, i88i, he found it the common practice to defend all prisoners 
 accused of agrarian crime ; and deeming such a practice objectionable, Mr. 
 Parnell discouraged it, but, said Sir Henry James, he did not stop it. Not 
 only did the leaguers refuse to assist the authorities in the detection of crime, 
 but they even attempted to corinipt the poHce. Sir Henry James then quoted 
 Mr. Harris, to illustrate the systematic refusal of information to the police : — 
 
 If you were to assist in the smallest degree in the detection of criminals connected with this 
 agrarian crime, 3-ou would cease then and there to have the slightest public influence in 
 Ireland. If I\Ir. Parnell himself were to give information against the humblest peasant in 
 the county of Galway he would cease to be a leader of the Irish people to-morrow. 
 
 This led Sir Henr}' James to comment upon the disappearance of the Land 
 League books and documents. Between the central office in Dublin and the 
 branches throughout the country there was, Sir Henr}- James said, regular 
 communication. In these communications their lordships would have found a 
 complete record of the doings of the League. But, he continued, with the 
 exception of one or two documents from Farragher and Phillips, four books 
 were all that the accused produced in court. Sir Henry James could under- 
 stand such a thing as the total destruction of the League books when certainty 
 of suppression became manifest ; but the books were not destroyed, they were 
 only carried off. We know, he added, about the League's receipts, but what 
 of its expenditure ? J\Ir. Egan, as treasurer of the Land League, had received 
 ;!^248,ooo. Deducting the amounts spent on relief, and on State trials, and a 
 sum of £'2.'],QQo stated to be balance in hand, there remained, said Sir Henry 
 James, £\1'}>^o<:q unaccounted for. 
 
Ttiesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 19. 343 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-FIFTH DAY. 
 
 November 19. 
 
 Sir Henry James opened yesterday's instalment of his long speech with some 
 criticism of the Land League accounts. As the details have so frequently been 
 repeated, only the general result need be given here. Mv. Egan, as Land 
 League treasurer, received, said Sir Henry James, ;!^246,ooo.in all. Elsewhere it 
 had been put at ;/,'24S,ooo. Of this amount, a sum of ^^72,470 had been sent from 
 Paris, by Mr. Egan, to the Ladies' Land League. But, he said, no account 
 was given of the way in which the second sum had been expended. There was 
 a balance remaining of ;!^27,ooo. A comparatively small sum had been spent on 
 relief. But as to what became of the vast bulk of nearly a quarter of a 
 million, no explanation whatever was offered. Sir Henry having alluded to 
 a sum of ;(^2,ooo spent for parliamentary purposes in 1880, the President 
 called Sir Heniy's attention to what Mr. Parnell had said regarding the sup- 
 pression of the League's original rule against the employment of League money 
 for political purposes. Mr. Davitt followed up the President's observation by 
 saying that the rule had been rescinded. But Sir Henry James contended that 
 no public record of its withdrawal existed, and that Mr. Parnell spoke only of 
 his " impression," not his certainty that the rule had been rescinded. 
 
 The four books produced before the Commission were not, said Sir Henry 
 James, the books wanted. They had never, he said, been out of Mr. Moloney's 
 possession. Consequently, they could not have been among the books for the 
 conveyance of which from Dublin to Liverpool and Liverpool to London, 
 arrangements had been made by Mr. Campbell, M.P., Mr. Parnell's secretary 
 in October, 1SS7. These books, mentioned in Mr. Campbell's letter, were 
 "specially guarded." Why, Sir Henry James asked, has not Mr. Campbell 
 been called ? Upon this Mr. Davitt remarked that Tvlr. Campbell had attended 
 the court for many days under subpoena by T/ie Times. " No, no, no," 
 quickly interrupted Sir James Hannen, "he ought to have been called by the 
 respondents." Land League clerks, Sir Henry James added, have spoken of 
 "sackfulls" of books that had been removed to Mrs. Moloney's house. But, 
 he continued, a few of these Land League documents, kept by the Land League 
 clerk, Phillips, accidentally came into the possession of T/ie Times : and these 
 documents, though most of them were comparatively unimportant, showed con- 
 clusively that League money had been spent by League oflicials for criminal 
 purposes. Sir Henry James contended that these papers were a revelation of 
 the character of the books and documents that were missing. He read some 
 of them in order to prove that evictions were really forced upon tenants, not so 
 much by the landlords as by the Land League. 
 
 As the documents in question were addressed by local branch secretaries, to 
 the central office in Dublin, Sir Henry James made the central branch re- 
 sponsible for some at least of the actions advocated in them. The most 
 interesting of these documents was, of course, the letter from Tim Horan, 
 Secretary of the Castleisland branch of the Land League. Upon the Tim 
 Horan letter, a familiar and favourite theme. Sir Henry James harangued 
 vigorously for about half an hour. Here is the letter : — 
 
 " I beg to direct your attention to a matter of private character which I attempted to 
 explain to you when I \\-as in Dubhn at the Convention. The fact is that one of the men from 
 a shot lost the use of his eye. It cost him £4 to go to Cork. ... No one knows the patients 
 but the doctor and myself, and the members of that society. I may inform you that the said 
 parties cannot afford to suffer. If it were a public affair a subscription list would be opened 
 at once for them, as they proved to be heroes. One other man escaped a shot butgot his jaw 
 grazed. Hoping you will, at j-our discretion, see your way to making a grant, which you caa 
 send through me or the Rev. John Hallagan, C.C. 
 
 ■ " Yours truly, 
 
 '• Timothy Horan.' 
 
344 Tuesday] Diary of [Nov. 19. 
 
 In the letter the priest's name was mis-spelled. Mr. John Ferguson, of Glasgow, 
 who signed the order for the payment of six pounds to the League branch secre- 
 tary, Tim Horan, on account of the medical expenses of the two men wounded in 
 a moonlighting (?) affair, had said in his evidence that he would gladly relieve any 
 sufferer, even if the sufferer were a criminal. But, exclaimed Sir Henry James, 
 loudly slapping his mountain of books, the money was paid after the two men 
 had been treated medically ; it was not a case of relieving suffering, for the 
 suffering had passed away. It was a case of recouping certain other persons for 
 their expenditure upon two men engaged in a criminal enterprise. The secret 
 of the enterprise in which the wounded men had been engaged was, according 
 to Sir Henry James, known only to Mr. Quinn, acting secretary of the Land 
 League ; Tim Horan (who had talked over the matter with Quinn), the doctor 
 who attended the wounded men, Father O'Callaghan, of the Land League 
 branch of which Horan was secretary. Mr. Quinn, said Sir Henry, has been 
 in this court ; " why has he not appeared in the witness-box? And why has 
 not Father O'Callaghan come to explain the serious charges against his conduct 
 in the Tim Horan affair ? " The non-appearance of these and other witnesses 
 was not, Sir Henry James said, to be accounted for by the withdrawal of Sir 
 Charles Russell and his colleagues, for before that withdrawal it was announced 
 what remaining witnesses were to be called by the respondents. Sir Henry 
 James regarded the Horan- Quinn correspondence as a proof of informer 
 O'Connor's and Inspector Davis's statement that there was an " inner circle " 
 among the Lartd Leaguers — a "secret police," as the accusers have called 
 them. All this while Sir Henry James had been dealing with the year 1881. 
 In that year Ireland — according to his reading of history — had reached her 
 lowest point of degradation. And this was]Mr. Parnell's doing. The Ireland 
 which he found in 1879 was different from the Ireland upon which, when he 
 entered Kilmainham, he turned his back for a time. Mr. Parnell convert 
 Fenianism into Constitutionalism, forsooth ! Why, all that Mr. Parnell had 
 done was to convert Fenianism into " Moonlighting ! " Here Sir Henry James 
 again banged his pile of books, and Mr. Davitt laughed. 
 
 Sir Henry James finished his description of 1 88 1 with a rapid account of the 
 Chicago Convention of that year, from which he dated what he regarded as the 
 Clan-na-Gael's gradual acquisition of complete control over the American Land 
 and National Leagues. Then he came to the year 18S2 and the Phoenix Park 
 murders, in his account of which he relied greatly upon the informer and con- 
 vict Delaney, whose evidence he again corroborated in some parts by the e\-idence 
 of another informer. Major Le Caron, alms Dr. Beach. He read acknowledged 
 letters from Mr. Egan in Paris to "My dear James" — Carey the informer. 
 Who were the Invincibles, he asked. Sheridan, Walsh, Brennan, Egan, 
 Byrne, Mrs. Byrne, Tynan (Number One) were in the first rank ; and in the 
 second were Carey, ]Molloy, Brady, ^Nlullett, Kelly, Dan Delaney, Curley, 
 Fagan. Now, said Sir Henry James, Sheridan and Walsh were leaguers, 
 Brennan was a secretary, and Egan treasurer of the Land League ; and all the 
 persons named, with only a single exception, had " either suffered at the hands 
 of justice or fled from it. Not one of them has dared to put his foot in the 
 country again." At this point Mr. Davitt rose to remark that no warrant of 
 arrest had ever been issued, and no charge ever preferred against Messrs. 
 Brennan and Egan. 
 
Wednesday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 20. 345 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SIXTH DAY. 
 
 November 20. 
 
 Having on the previous day given his list of Invincibles, and placed Egan 
 among the " first division " of them, Sir Henry James began to-day's instal- 
 ment of his speech with a denial of the respondents' statement that Egan went 
 away from Dublin for business reasons. He went, Sir Hemy James repeated, 
 to escape from justice, and in such haste that he left his wife dangerously ill at 
 the time, with none to take care of her. Egan, he continued, must have been 
 the man from whom came the money which Delaney swore he saw paid over 
 in the presence of Byrne in August, 1882, to the men who three months before 
 had perpetrated the Phoenix Park murders. Delaney had; also sworn that it 
 was arranged that Egan must be consulted before other murders were under- 
 taken. These " Invincibles " were ''needy " men ; and there was only one 
 man from whom they could have received their large sums of money, namely, 
 Egan, who had power to spend as much as he pleased, and in any way he 
 pleased. 
 
 Our case, said Sir Henry James, has been called "a thing of shreds and 
 patches," but Sir Henry claimed that he was piecing them together ; and he 
 called Sir Charles's case a thing of "rents and tears." In Sir Henry James's 
 view Egan's utterances in the United States were significant. At Chicago 
 Egan had said that " a more sterhng patriot " than Dan Curley (one of the 
 Phoenix Park murderers) "had never died for Ireland." In March, 1883, 
 Egan made a speech in which he said of Mullett that he had ' ' known him 
 personally as a man of sound business principles and integrity of character," 
 and, Egan added, " I do not believe he has turned informer." Egan did not 
 say, remarked Sir Henry James, "that he believed in Mullet's innocence." 
 And why was it, he asked, that "the families of those who pleaded guilty" 
 got nothing from the Martyrs' Relief Fund, but only the families of those who 
 were condemned? Sir Henry James contended that the theory of the per- 
 petration of the murders by American strangers was inconsistent with Egan's 
 opposition to the proposal that the League should contribute five thousand 
 pounds towards the detection of the criminals. Then he came to the story 
 about ^Ir. Parnell's payment of a hundred pound cheque to Frank Byrne 
 immediately before Byrne's departure for Paris. Of this story he remarked 
 that the explanation of it given by Mr. McCarthy and others might have been 
 given earlier. 
 
 Then Sir Henry James came to the question of the Pigott letters. He took 
 the responsibility, he said, of refraining from discussing the course The Times 
 took before it published the letters ; and he refrained because that very ques- 
 tion would be considered in the pending libel action which Mr. Parnell has 
 brought against The Times. But one thing he would say, and that was that 
 the stories about Mr. Buckle's disagreement with his colleagues on the subject 
 of the letters were unfounded. 
 
 Sir Henry James novv- addressed himself to the next chief head of his address 
 — the National League. The chief difference, in Sir Henry's estimation, 
 between it and the Land League was that the boycotting methods of the 
 National League were more perfect than those of its predecessor. He 
 admitted that in 18S3-1884 there was a great diminution of disturbance 
 throughout Ireland ; but he ascribed that partly to the effect of coercive 
 legislation, and partly to the fact that the peasantry had learned how to use 
 their political organization. In discussing the influence of the Catholic clergy 
 under the National League, Sir Henry James was hard on the curates, who, 
 being young men, were prone to agitation, while their elders, the parish priests, 
 preferred a quiet hfe. To illustrate the position of the "R.C.C." — Roman 
 
34^ Thursday] Diary of [Nov. 21. 
 
 Catholic Curate — in modern Ireland, Sir Henry read the refrain of a poem by 
 the Nationalist bard, Mr. T. D. SulUvan :— 
 
 We all revere the great Arch E., 
 We much admire the deep D.D., 
 We know the worth of the good P.P., 
 But the man we love is the R.C.C.. 
 
 The kindly, friendly R.C.C., 
 The Church's bravest soldier he ; 
 The hope of Ireland, bond or tree, 
 The fearless patriot, R.C.C 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVENTH DAY. 
 
 November 21. 
 
 With "the fearless patriot R.C.C." Sir Henry James began to-day's dis- 
 course. Sir Henry James believes that the new generation of R.C.C.'s are a 
 Church Militant in the unfavourable sense. He spoke of the Rev. Mr. Rowan, 
 who was strong on guncotton, and made a speech about " blowing up London 
 into fragments no bigger than grains of sand ; " and Sir Henry quoted the 
 " three cheers " exclamation with which somebody in the crowd signified his 
 approval of the warlike priest. This, said Sir Henry, might be regarded as 
 merely foolish, stupid speech, but, he said, it was uttered about the beginning 
 of the d)'namite scares, and it would be accepted by the crowd as the serious 
 teaching of their spiritual instructors. 
 
 Some specimens of priestly oratory, quoted by Sir Henry James, betrayed a 
 defective sense of literary restraint. One reverend gentleman classified grab- 
 bers as he would classify dogs. There were mongrels among them — the 
 grabbers — and * ' curs of low degree, " but presently he passed on to another 
 division of the animal kingdom, and he likened the grabber unto "a poisonous 
 reptile that drives its fangs " into something or other — we forget what. And 
 this sort of talk was going on, said Sir Henry James, eight or nine years ago, 
 when Sheridan and Number One (Tynan), Boyton, and Brennan were in their 
 own way stirring up the peasantry. Sir Henry James was severe upon two 
 priests in particular — Father Egan and Father Considine. Father Egan, one 
 of the Woodford men, was at first "C. C." in the neighbouring parish of 
 Loughrea. "Crime followed the footsteps of Father Egan," said Sir Henry 
 James. Loughrea was peaceful before Father Egan became its C. C. Mur- 
 ders broke out during his incumbency ; and they ceased when he left. Father 
 Considine's dismissal of all grabbers to " the cold, deep damnation of disgrace " 
 about finished Sir Henry James's review of "the fearless patriot, R.C.C.'s" 
 political oratory. 
 
 As to moonlighting, Sir Henry James said that the true nature of the 
 practice had "in an unthoughtful moment" been disclosed by one of the 
 clerical witnesses. Father O'Connor, who testified that "the new men" used 
 moonlighting for robbery — " petty larceny " as Sir Henry James called it — 
 whereas the original intention of moonlighting was to " intimidate grabbers." 
 Sir Henry James maintained that even Mr. Davitt, in his denunciations of 
 moonlighting, referred more to robbery than to the general system of intimida- 
 tion — an interpretation of his words to which Mr. Davitt, addressing their 
 lordships, briefly objected. 
 
 There came a time, said Sir Henr^' James, when crimes were denounced by 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 22. 347 
 
 the League. That was in February, i8S6, when the Liberal Government 
 came into power, and when, said Sir Henry, the Irish deemed it necessary to 
 satisfy their Liberal friends' demands that no outrages must be committed. He 
 quoted, in proof of this, a resolution of the central office in Dublin, issued on 
 on the 5th of February, 1886. But, said Sir Henry James, your lordships will find 
 no similar resolution in the years 18S0-S1. Sir Henry James next entered into 
 a long statement about the great difficulties with which the Attorney-General 
 had to contend in his conduct of the case. From first to last, said Sir Henry, 
 obstacles had been placed against the efforts of the counsel for the prosecution 
 to present their case as completely as possible. He referred to the conduct of 
 Molloy and Coffey as an illustration of these difficulties. But he affirmed that, 
 in spite of all these obstacles, the accusers had succeeded in getting at the 
 truth, particularly through informers who had been in the secret work of the 
 League. Excluding the most important informers, such as Le Caron, Delaney, 
 and jMulqueeney, the prosecution had produced fourteen minor informers. The 
 fourteen had named ninety-six persons ; but of the ninety-six, said Sir Henry 
 James, only four had been called by the respondents. Again, Sir Charles 
 Russell promised to place all the sixty-five members of Parliament in the wit- 
 ness-box. But, said Sir Henr}-, " only thirty-three have been called; where 
 are the others ? " Here Sir James Hannen remarked that what Sir Charles 
 Russell promised was that all the sixty-five would appear if his friend the 
 Attorney- General or their lordships desired it. 
 
 ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHTH DAY. 
 
 November 22. 
 
 Both during the morning and afternoon sittings the court was crowded to its 
 utmost capacity. People came to hear Sir Henry James's peroration ; and 
 evidently they expected it would be delivered before half-past one o'clock. 
 Not so many would have come had it been known that Sir Henry James 
 would speak till four o'clock. 
 
 In this last day's instalment of his speech there was nothing of any special 
 interest. It was wholly occupied with that portion of the hundred and 
 twenty-eight days' history for which the public have cared least, namely, the 
 portion about the American Conventions. Major Le Caron, alias Dr. Beach, 
 made the iVmerican case interesting, but nobody else has. However, the 
 densely-packed assemblage sat patiently all day long, waiting for Sir Henry's 
 peroration. Lord Randolph Churchill came in about half-past eleven o'clock, 
 and sat down on the solicitors' bench beside JMr. Soames, whispering into his 
 ear now and then, as if he wanted to be coached up. Mv. Walter, jun., also 
 came in and sat down beside Mr. Davitt. The pair nodded and smiled at 
 each other in a friendly way. Perhaps it was at the prospect of approaching 
 release. Not for the first time have curious spectators in court been struck by 
 the cheery affability towards each other of men who, especially since the 
 beginning of 1886, have been abusing each other on platforms and in the 
 Press. " No man is a fiend," said " Murty Hynes," in his hearty way, when 
 he was in the witness box, and to see the combatants smiling at each other on 
 the last day of their set-to, one might fancy they were beginning to agree with 
 the bard. Even Le Caron looked happy as he craned his neck (being a short 
 man) to see over the shoulders of the people in front of him. 
 
 Sir Henry James argued that from the time of the Washington Convention 
 
348 Friday] Diary of [Nov. 22. 
 
 of 1SS2 the Clan-na-Gael grew in influence over the entire Irish- American 
 movement until, in three or four years more, they "captured" it altogether. 
 As an illustration of this, he quoted an expression from one of Mr. Davitt's 
 American speeches of that period — "I neither condemn nor repudiate those 
 who rely solely upon physical force for the redemption of Ireland." But Mr. 
 Egan's arrival in America in 1883, and his subsequent activity in the physical 
 force party, were, in Sir Henry James's estimation, of much greater signifi- 
 cance even than Mr. Davitt's declarations. Sir Heniy James pointed out that 
 the ascendancy of the Clan-na-Gael influence in America was contemporaneous 
 with the dynamite attempts on London Bridge and the Local Government 
 Board Ofiices. Egan, said Sir Henry James, associated with men who, like 
 Finerty, regretted that the dynamite attempts were unsuccessful. Discussing 
 the Philadelphia Convention of 1S83, he quoted the words of one of its 
 leading members, that for any "means of retaliation to which the Irish in 
 their despair might be driven, the cruelty of the English Government would 
 alone be responsible." It was at the Philadelphia Convention, said Sir Henry 
 James, that the ' ' conservative " section of the American-Irish movement, 
 having become numerically weak, merged itself in the more numerous and 
 revolutionary party. And then the entire management fell into the hands of 
 the Clan-na-Gael Committee of seven members, of whom Sullivan was the 
 head. In the same year, the supreme control of the revolutionary body was 
 vested in three persons, of whom Sullivan was the chief. This was the regime 
 of " the triangle," in the revolutionary slang. The next Convention was that 
 of Boston, 1884. At this Convention the Parliamentary Fund was started, 
 with Alexander Sullivan as one of its originators, and a committee of Clan-na- 
 Gael people to supervise it. According to Sir Henry James, this transaction 
 completed the "capture" of the Irish League in America by the physical 
 force men. From the Parliamentary fund established at the Boston Conven- 
 tion, £7,SS^ were, said Sir Henry James, paid to the Irish members in 1886, 
 and ;^io,5oo in the following year. It was with the source of the money, not 
 with its payment, that Sir Henry James found fault. 
 
 Long before four o'clock, Sir Henry's listeners — we mean the laity — were 
 tired of all this ancient history. It had been told months ago by ]^Iajor Le 
 Caron. It was almost enough to make Sir Henry's hearers groan when he 
 went back to the dismal story of the Curtins and the Fitzmaurices. But they 
 were waiting for the peroration. It came at last. Here are the concluding 
 sentences : 
 
 My Lords, — Long as I have occupied your attention, and, badlj' as the thread of my tale 
 has been told, I have now placed before j-ou, in some sort of sequence, I hope, a history of 
 the past ten years — a sad history to affect any people. It has been a history full of crime, 
 springing from a hasty assumption of power. It is a period of shame, and sad shame, and it 
 is a period that surely Irishmen — patriotic Irishmen — must now be and ever will be bitterly re- 
 gretting, ^ly Lords, Ireland has had dark and bitter days in her past. She has sent her 
 strong men to fight upon the open field, and they have fought. Even her statesmen — her 
 eloquent statesmen— have been silent in their sadness, in the dajs when, we are told, Grattan 
 and Charlemont wept in their sorrow. But I know not that ever until now they had cause to 
 be ashamed of the history of their country-. It is said, "■ Happj- is the country that has no 
 history-."' and so it might be true of Ireland that such would be the case. This I know, if 
 men doubt the application of that trite statement to Ireland, happy would it have been for 
 this people, happy would it have been for those who acted and for those who suffered, if the 
 events of the last ten years could be blotted out. Xo human hand can do so — the annihila- 
 tion of events is impossible, and all that remains, m^- Lords, to do is that faithful record shall 
 be made of those acts that have occurred. Such, my Lords, will be your duty. It may be, 
 and probably will be, that all who have taken part in this inquiry, from j'our lordships to the 
 humblest officer of this Court, will receive some condemnation, some attack, and some 
 obloquy. But let that pass. The effect of the truth being told must be great, for then the 
 people, stirred by an awakened conscience, will be aroused from the dreams of a long night, 
 and, when awake, the^- will despise their dreams, and finding at length new modes of action 
 of a higher character, and led by truer men, then it will be — and God grant it may be I — that 
 blessings will be poured upon a happy and contented people. 
 
Friday] the Parnell Commission. [Nov. 22. 349 
 
 It was thought that after the speeches, the Commissioners would, on their 
 account, call some witnesses — especially with a view to eliciting further in- 
 formation about the League funds. But Sir James Hannen, addressing 
 Counsel as soon as Sir Henry James sat down, intimated that, in the judgment 
 of the Court, the "exceptional circumstances" that would have justified such 
 a step had not arisen. And now, he added, I have to congratulate counsel 
 who are still before us on the completion of their arduous task, and to thank 
 them and those others to whom such thanks are due, for the untiring industry 
 and conspicuous ability which they have placed at our service, and for the 
 great assistance we have derived from their labours. Our labours, however, 
 are not concluded. We must bear our burden yet a little longer. One hope 
 supports us. Conscious throughout this great inquest that we have sought 
 only the truth, we trust that we shall be guided to find it, and set it forth 
 plainly in the sight of all men. 
 
 The judges then withdrew ; Sir Henry James received the congratulations 
 or his learned brethren, and of not a few among the unlearned crowd ; and 
 the Parnell Commission, as far as the public inquiry was concerned, was at an 
 end. 
 
 NOTES. 
 
 As stated in page 172, the news of Pigott's death reached London on Saturday, 
 the 2nd of March, eight days after his last appearance in the witness-box. 
 Having on Saturday morning, the 23rd of February, relieved his conscience 
 by making a full confession before Mr. Labouchere and Mr. G. A. Sala, he 
 rewarded himself with a visit to the Alhambra in the evening. With the price 
 of some books which he sold at Messrs. Sotheby's, he started some time after 
 4 p.m. on Monday afternoon for the Continent ; and he was rushing at express 
 speed through France at the very time, Tuesday morning, the 26th of February, 
 when Sir Charles Russell was waiting for him in court with a bag full of 
 unpleasant proofs and illustrations of Pigott's past career as a forger and dealer 
 in obscene photographs. On Thursday morning, the 2Sth of February, the 
 Enghsh-speaking interpreter of the Hotel des Ambassadeurs, Madrid, accosted 
 a passenger who had just alighted from the Paris express. This was Pigott. 
 Pigott accompanied the interpreter to the hotel. Having breakfasted, he took 
 the interpreter with him to visit the churches and museums. Judging from 
 the meagre accounts of his two days in Madrid, he appears to have been easy 
 enough in mind, but for one thing — the non-arrival of a reply to his telegraphic 
 request, from Madrid, to Shannon for the money which " you promised," It 
 was this telegram which put the detectives on his track. The accounts of his 
 death vary slightly. But the facts appear to be, that at 5 o'clock on the 
 afternoon of Friday, the 1st of March, the hotel interpreter informed Pigott 
 that a police officer wanted to see him ; that on learning from the police 
 officer what he had come for, Pigott re-entered his room ; that the report of a 
 pistol-shot immediately followed ; and that on rushing in, the interpreter and 
 the police found that Pigott had shot himself through the brain. 
 
 II. 
 
 At the beginning of last September, the Irish Loyal and Patriotic Union 
 replied to the " foul conspiracy" charge of Sir Charles Russell, by passing the 
 following resolution at a meeting of its general council held ir Dublin : — 
 
350 Notes. 
 
 That this council desires to convey to the subscribers and friends of the association the 
 absolute assurance that no portion of the funds of the association have been applied directly 
 or indirectly, by payment or loan, to or through the late Dr. Maguire, Mr. Houston, or any 
 other person, or in any other way towards the purchase or procurement of the letters in 
 controversy at the Special Commission known as the Pigott letters. 
 
 III. 
 
 On the 8th of this month, November last, ]Mr. Campbell-Bannerman made a 
 public statement which adds to the surprise that the accusers should ever have 
 ventured to put Pigott into the witness-box. He says that when he was Chief 
 Secretary for Ireland, Pigott's bad character was a topic of " common gossip " 
 in Dublin. Said ]Mr. Bannerman's private secretary one day — " Whatever 
 you do, let me answer the letter (one of Pigott's) and upon no account answer 
 in your own handwriting." Some further light upon Pigott's history, including 
 his relations with influential politicians in London, may soon be afforded 
 by the publication of certain papers of Pigott's which were secured some time 
 since by a colleague of Mr. Parnell's. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 [T. IV. means Times witness : P, IV. means Parnell witness.] 
 
 Admissions of Ti7nes witnesses favour- 
 able to Parnellites — Constable Irwin 
 reports Mr. O'Halloran's condemnation 
 of outrages, 9 ; Captain O'Shea de- 
 scribes effect of Phoenix Park murders 
 on Mr. Parnell, 12 ; Constable Irwin 
 describes reckless despair produced by- 
 evictions, 12 ; Many League speeches 
 enjoin patience, 13 ; Secret society men 
 try to break up League meetings, 13 ; 
 Constable Irwin has heard Mr. Davitt 
 warn people against crime and denounce 
 moonlighters, 14 ; Constable Bernard 
 O' Mai ley describes landlords' indiffe- 
 rence to their tenants' distress, 14 ; 
 John Rafferty does not think the 
 League is responsible for outrage upon 
 him, 16 ; ]Mr. Ives, of New York Herald, 
 on starving condition of people and 
 indifference of landlords, 20 ; Mr. Ives' 
 impression of Scrab, 20 ; Mr. Botterill's 
 notions of his duties as a landlord, 23 ; 
 Heagley's evidence, 23 ; Tom Connair 
 - ' never said his was burnt because he 
 paid his rent," 24 ; Mike Hoarty blesses 
 instead of cursing League, 30 ; Sub-In- 
 spector Murphy says constabulary sub- 
 scribed to help tenants, 32 ; A black- 
 smith believes in the League, 34 ; Sulli- 
 van says, "The League took my part," 
 34 ; Farmer Conway declares League 
 denounced outrageupon him, 34 ; Mrs. 
 Leahy says all her neighbours sympa- 
 thize with her, 37 ; Kerry farmer 
 O'Connor declares he and his friends 
 all members of League, 37 ; Dowling 
 says moonlighters not leaguers, 37 ; 
 Young Curtin asserts he had no reason 
 to believe League had anything to do 
 with his father's murder, 39 ; Mr. Leo- 
 nard, Lord Kenmare's agent, relates 
 eviction of the Duggans, 42 ; Issues a 
 ■distress warrant against the Curtins, 42 ; 
 Inspector Huggins admits outrages in- 
 
 crease after the suppression of the 
 League, 44 ; ■Sir. Teahan was boycotted 
 from private jealousy, 45 ; District In- 
 spector Davis says threatening letters 
 often written by those who received 
 them, 48 ; Head-Constable Gilhooly 
 says League contained almost all re- 
 spectable people, 49 ; Tom Galvin 
 attributes outrage upon him to a family 
 quarrel, 50 ; Brown's failure to give 
 any information, 51 ; John Kennedy 
 doesn't "blame the League, "52; Murphy 
 admits he may have been a victim of 
 private vengeance, 55 ; Kerry Se^itiriel 
 denounces outrage on Alacauliffe, 55 ; 
 Eugene Sheehy does not blame League, 
 58 ; Mr. Hussey admits destroying his 
 tenants' houses, but does not consider 
 his unpopularity a result, 60 ; Mr. 
 Hegarty's letter to Mr. Davitt, 61 ; 
 Cornelius Regan says League de- 
 nounced outrage upon him, 66 ; Cha- 
 racter of boy-informer J. Walsh, 67 ; 
 Jeremiah Buckley had never suggested 
 the League was connected with outrage 
 upon him, 68 ; Mike Burke's confused 
 evidence, 71 ; Mr. Kelleher's evidence 
 concerning }vlr. Hussey 's treatment of 
 his tenants, 72 ; Pat Molloy's story of 
 how he humbugged The Times^ 74 ; 
 District Inspector M'Ardle says out- 
 rages increased after League leaders 
 were imprisoned, 75; League denounced 
 murder of young Freeney and father 
 declares he believes it had nothing 
 to do with it, ^6 ; Pressed by Sir J. 
 Hannen, District Inspector Gambell 
 admits that he does not know any 
 moonlighters who are leaguers, 81 ; 
 Mr. E. Smith, Lord Sligo's land-agent, 
 admits that for years before League 
 agents went about armed, 83 ; Informer 
 Buckley admits no one in Kerry would 
 believe his uncorroborated oath, 8^ ; 
 
352 
 
 Index. 
 
 Worth of Tom O'Connor's evidence, 
 90 ; Character of lago, Times witness, 
 95 ; Pat Delaney, highway robber and 
 murderer, 97 ; Mr. John Barrett admits 
 a tenant evicted by him died in a ditch, 
 103: Mr, O'Donnell, landlord, himself 
 carries out the wife of one of his tenants 
 having dragged her from her bed, 103 ; 
 Mr. Studdert, agent to Mr. Vandeleur, 
 admits distress of tenants and landlords' 
 delay in granting relief, 106 ; No agra- 
 rian murders in Tipperary since estab- 
 lishment of League, 106 ; Rents reduced 
 by Land Courts on Mr. Sandy's estate, 
 108 ; Informer Dennis Tobin knows 
 nothing of League, no ; Captain Slack 
 has to admit that no agrarian crime in 
 Tipperary since the League, 112 ; Mr. 
 Hanley and his battering-ram, 117 ; 
 Beach' (Le Caron) admits O'Donovan 
 Rossa w^as " hounded out " of Chicago 
 Convention, 133 ; Mr, Macdonald's 
 reasons for trusting the letters were 
 genuine, 144 ; Articles written " in the 
 ordinary course of business," 145 ; Mr. 
 Houston deliberately destroys "the 
 clue to original sources," 146 ; Mr. 
 Houston's story of the black bag, 147 ; 
 Of the people downstairs, 148 ; Mr. 
 Pigott's oath to the Clan-na-Gael, 151 ; 
 Pigott's account of interview with Mr. 
 Labouchere, Mr. Parnell, and Mr. 
 Lewis, 153 ; Pigott's correspondence 
 with Archbishop Walsh, 155 ; " It has 
 fiownoutof mybosom,"i55; Sir Charles 
 Russell consults Pigott on best way of 
 forging and on orthography of hesitancy, 
 159 ; Pigott's correspondence with Mr. 
 Forster, 160 ; Pigott's confession, 166 ; 
 Sheridan and Fitzpatrick admitted by 
 Mr, Loftus to be enemies of League, 
 176 ; Informer Colman's ignorance of 
 matters connected with League, 178 ; 
 Colman's character, 179 ; Coffey de- 
 nies all his evidence, 183 ; Character 
 of Leavy, 187 ; Mulqueeny admits Mr. 
 Parnell's cheque of ;^ioo may have been 
 for League and not to assist Mr. Byrne's 
 escape, 189. 
 
 Barrett (one of men hanged for murder of 
 Farmer Brown), 51, 52 
 
 Barrett, John, land agent, Cork ( Times 
 witness), 103 
 
 Barry, Dominic, Sub-Inspector of 
 Pohce, Loughrea {T. W.), 16-19 
 
 Beach, Thomas Miller (called Le Caron) ; 
 Evidence-in-chief, 120-129 ; Cross- 
 examined by Sir C. Russell, Messrs. 
 Reid, and Lockwood, 129-136 ; Evi- 
 dence concerning Mr. Parnell, 123, 
 125, 127, 129, 134; W. M. Lomasney, 
 
 124, 127 ; Messrs. Sexton and Brennan, 
 128, 135 ; Dr. Gallagher, 128 ; Houston, 
 131 ; " I always voted on the side of 
 the majority," 135 ; Sir Charles Russell 
 upon Beach, 208, 209 ; Mr. Parnell 
 denies Beach's story, 215, 217 ; Mr. 
 Michael Davitt upon Beach, 277, 311, 
 313 ; Sir Henry James upon, 331, 340 
 
 Beattie, Constable {T. W.), evidence on 
 Finlay's murder, 18 
 
 Bell, District Inspector, Loughrea 
 
 (r. w.), 19, 20 
 
 Bermingham, man evicted from farm 
 taken first by Murty Hynes, then by 
 Dempsey, 16 
 
 Bermifigham, James, process-server and 
 tenant of evicted farm, boycotted for 
 six years {T. W.), S3 
 
 Biggar, M. P., Attorney-General upon, 
 4, 8 ; Mr, Biggar and Mrs, Blake of 
 Connemara, 26 ; and Mr, Hussey, 58 ; 
 and Mr, Hegarty, 62 ; I\Ir, Biggar's 
 speech, 307 ; Mr, Biggar and his ac- 
 counts, 341 ; Sir Henry James upon, 
 334 
 
 Blake, Mrs., of Connemara, landowner 
 [T. W.), 25; Cross-examined by Mr, 
 Biggar, 26 ; Father O'Connell upon, 
 230 ; Mr. Matt. Harris, 300 ; Father 
 Finneran upon, 243 ; Sir H. James 
 quotes an ungallant observation of 
 Matt. Harris, 339 
 
 Blake, Mrs., wudow of J. H. Blake, Lord 
 Clanricarde's agent {T. W.), 27; 
 Father Egan, priest of Dunivy, on 
 murder, 237 
 
 Bodki7i, Father, priest of MuUagh 
 {P. W.), 242 
 
 Botterill, Galway landlord {T. W.), 23, 
 
 234 
 
 Bourke, Constable, murdered near 
 Craughwell, Galway, 1882, 21 ; Father 
 Considine and Stephen Tarpey deny 
 police evidence that people trod in the 
 blood of murdered constables, 232 
 
 Bnrke, Charles, farmer of Kiltimagh, 
 denies T. Walsh's evidence, 274 
 
 Boycott, Captain [T. W.), 80 
 
 Boycotting, Archbishop \\'alsh's view of, 
 230 ; Dr. McCormack's Bishop of Gal- 
 w^ay, 233 ; Mr. Roche of Woodford, 
 240 ; Mr, W. O'Brien, 246 ; Rev. Mr. 
 Anderson, 256 ; Mr. Arthur O'Connor, 
 259 ; Mr. Justin M'Carthy, 259 ; Mr, 
 E. Harrington, 262 ; Father Godley, 
 263 ; Father Law^ler, 264; Mr. Sexton, 
 271 ; Mr. Thomas Mayne, 287; Sir H. 
 James gives history of Boycott, 335 
 
 Boyto7i, 48, 205, 225 ; Delaney's evidence 
 that Boyton showed Brady Mr. Burke, 
 100 
 
 Brown, of Castleisland {T. 11".), 50 
 
Index. 
 
 353 
 
 Brow7i, Mrs. yo/ia/ina ( T. IV.), widow of 
 man for wliose murder Boff and Barrett 
 were hanged, 51 
 
 Brady, Joe, hanged for murder of Mr. 
 Burke in Phoenix Park ; Delaney's evi- 
 dence concerning, 8, 99 
 
 Buckley, James, Informer, Kerry {T. W.), 
 admits attempts to murder Sheehy and 
 Roche, 83-86 ; Mike Roche's account 
 of Buckley's attempt, 117 ; Mr. H. 
 O'Connor describes Buckley as worst 
 character in Kerry, 268 
 
 Buckley, Jeremiah ( T. W,), peasant : ear 
 cut off by moonlighters, 68 
 
 Burke, of Woodford {T. W.), boycotted ; 
 accuses Father Egan and Mr. John 
 Roche of boycott, 21 
 
 Biirke, Mike, Informer (7". W.), evidence 
 on murder of Lord Mountmorres, 70-72 
 
 Byrne, M.P. for Wicklow, 287 
 
 Byrne, Mr. Frank, Le Caron's evi- 
 dence concerning, 125 ; Mulqueeny's 
 evidence, 188, 189 ; Sir C. Russell, 205 ; 
 Mr. T. Harrington, 275 ; Delaney says 
 an Invincible, 98 ; Mrs. F. Byrne and 
 Phoenix Park knives — Delaney's ac- 
 count of Byrne's presence at murder 
 councils, 99 
 
 Cahill, R. I. C. {T. W.), examined, 63 
 Canava?i, Relieving-officer, Tuam {P. 
 
 W.), 235 
 Carey, T., Informer, 5 
 Casey, Dick, see Buckley's evidence, 53 
 Cawley {P. IV.), evidence, 233 
 Charleto7i, Police-officer {T. IV.), 21 
 Clancy {P. IK), denies evidence of Con- 
 
 nell, 254 
 Clancy, ^NI.P., examined by Sir H. James 
 Clanricarde, Lord, murder of his agent, 
 Mr. Blake, 27 ; Chief Baron Palles 
 quoted by Sir C. Russell, 204 ; Mr. 
 Reid produces Sir M. Hicks-Beach ; 
 Correspondence with, 240 ; Father 
 Egan on state of tenants, 237 
 Clare, County, 3, 5 
 
 Coffey, Timothy, of Limerick {T.W.), 
 entirely denies his evidence taken by 
 Mr. Shannon, 180-183; President com- 
 mits him for contempt, 184 
 Colmafz, American informer and spy 
 {T. W.), joined I. R. B. 1886, and gave 
 information of proposed outrages to 
 police, 177, 178; Mr. Davitt cross-ex- 
 amines Colman as to his character, 179 
 Commins, Dr., ^lember for South Ros- 
 common, examined, 275 
 Connei-s, James, murder of, 17 ; story 
 
 contradicted, 242 
 Condon, Thoinas, Member for East Tip- 
 perary, a prisoner under Coercion Act ; 
 Denies storythat he boycotted ^Mitchell, 
 
 24 
 
 293 ;■ Mitchell's story about Condon, 
 
 ~ 138 
 
 Co7iolly, Mayor of Sligo, testifies to bene- 
 ficial influence of the Land League, 
 291 
 
 Cojinair, Tojn (T. IV.), Gal way peasant, 
 24 
 
 Con?zell, Dan, man who staled League 
 paid him _^io for moonhghting, 63 
 
 Comiell, James, man boycotted and in- 
 timidated, 254 
 
 Connell, Hannah, boycotted by her own 
 account, 91 ; Story contradicted by 
 Father White, 241 
 
 Considine, Father, Mr. Hughes' evidence 
 about the P'ather and the gift of ^^15, 
 26 ; Father Considine on Hughes' epi- 
 sode, 231; the Father's strong speeches, 
 231 ; His views on boycotting, 232 ; 
 He denies police story of people tread- 
 ing in Constable Bourke's blood {see 
 p. 21), 232 
 
 Conway, farmer, Kerry (T.W.), shot at 
 by moonlighters, 34 
 
 Cozirsey, of Loughrea (T.W.), evidence 
 about Finlay's murder, 18 
 
 Coyle, Mayor of Kilkenny {P. IV.), on 
 League, 291 
 
 Crane, District Inspector, Kerry (T. W.), 
 on Land League, 55, 56 
 
 Crawford, Mrs. Emily, Daily News Paris 
 correspondent, on Egan, 314 
 
 Creagh, Constable (T. W.), arrests moon- 
 lighter with League ticket, 30 
 
 Crilly, Mr. Daniel, of The Nation news- 
 paper, states he has constantly de- 
 nounced crime, 291 
 
 Ctclloty, John {T.IV.), farmer from 
 Castleisland ; Process - server ; Leg 
 broken ; Cannot obtain coffin for child, 
 36 
 
 Curtin, murdered in 1885 ; Miss Curtin's 
 evidence, 38, 39 ; Son's evidence, 39 ; 
 Constable Meehan attempts to impli- 
 cate leaguers in murder, 39 ; Distress 
 warrant against Curtins by Lord Ken- 
 mare, 42 ; Mr. Davitt's sympathy with 
 Curtins, 49 ; Sir Charles Russell up'on, 
 204 ; Father O'Connor and the Curtins, 
 267 ; Mr. John O'Connor visits them, 
 288 
 
 Davis, District Inspector { T. W. ), ex- 
 amined by Sir H. James on Land 
 League and " inner circle " ; Murder of 
 Mr. Herbert, terror of people, 45, 46 ; 
 Cross-examined by Messrs. Reid and 
 Asquith, 47, 48 ; by Mr. Davitt, 49 
 
 Davis, Eugene, Houston upon Lausanne 
 communication to Pigott, 149, 150 ; 
 Pigott's account, 151 ; Pigott's last 
 story, 167 
 
354 
 
 Index, 
 
 Davit t, Michael, 2, 6, 8, 11 ; Cross-ex- 
 amines Constable Irwin, 14 ; Informer 
 Flanagan, 29 ; District Inspector Davis, 
 49 ; Pat Molloy, 74 ; Policeman Feeley's 
 mistake, 81 ; Cross-examines Pat De- 
 laney, loi ; Mr. Studdert, 106 ; Sir H. 
 James's and Mr. Davitt's extracts from 
 New York World, 139 ; Sir Charles 
 Russell and, 196 ; Pigott confesses forg- 
 ing Mr. Davitt's writing, 200 ; Mr. Davitt 
 and Curtin family, 204, 205 ; Mr. 
 Davitt's reply to Philadelphian Con- 
 vention, 1883, 209 ; " Dynamiters don't 
 represent us," 210 ; Examined by Sir 
 Charles Russell, 276-278 ; Cross-ex- 
 amination by Attorney-General, 278- 
 284 ; Early experiences, 276 ; On Mr. 
 Parnell and Phoenix Park murders, 277 ; 
 Mr. Davitt's letters, 278; On Egan, 278 ; 
 On "Scrab,'' 281; On Ladies' Land 
 League, 281 ; Young Walsh, 283 ; on 
 Finerty and Patrick Ford, 283 ; No 
 connection with Phoenix Park murders, 
 284 ; xvlr. Davitt's examination of Mr. 
 J. Lowden, 285, 286 ; Mr. Davitt and 
 the dynamite "hoax," 291; Mr. Davitt's 
 speech, 307-322; Land League " off- 
 spring of thoughts that lightened the 
 burden of penal servitude," 308 ; only 
 the ' ' crime inevitably associated with 
 popular movements against injustice," 
 308 ; On Delaney's evidence, 309 ; 
 Forrester letter, 309; "Nothing is more 
 foreign to my nature than the idea of 
 assassination," 309 ; Causes of Irish- 
 American animosity, evictions and 
 miseries remembered by emigrants, 
 "America lost through Irish emi- 
 grants," 310; General Sheridan, 310; 
 O'Donovan Rossa, thirty years ago a 
 genial, kindhearted young man, 310 ; 
 Source of Land League funds, 310 ; 
 Beach and Houston, 311-313 ; Ford's 
 enmity to Mr. Parnell, 311 ; Devoy's 
 proposals disapproved by Mr. Parnell 
 and Mr. Davitt, 313 ; He rejects with 
 scorn Times' statement that dyna- 
 miters controlled open movement, 312 ; 
 " It has come to my knowledge through 
 Pigott's servant," 312 ; Mr. Davitt on 
 Egan's horror at Phoenix Park murder, 
 313; on "Parnellism and Crime," "that 
 liar's and forger's catechism,'' 314; 
 Tifnes blunder between Mr. Patrick 
 Egan and :Mr. P. B. Egan, 315 ; Be- 
 cause Clan-na-Gael members may have 
 joined League, it is not responsible for 
 Clan-na-Gael, 315 ; Clan-na-Gael a 
 revolutionary club but not a murder 
 club, 316 ; Tenants' League origin of 
 Land League, 316 ; Mr. Davitt's child- 
 ish memory of eviction and famine. 
 
 317 ; no grosser injustice than Times* 
 suppression of conciliatory speeches 
 invariably made at League meetings, 
 319 ; Hundreds and thousands of 
 speeches denouncing crime, 319 ; 
 Mr. Davitt and Ladies' Land 
 League, 319 ; Fafragher, Delaney, 
 Pigott, "three exquisite scoun- 
 drels," 320 ; Delaney's letter — 
 Mr. Davitt interrupted by Attorney- 
 General, 321 ; Names shall be made 
 public before long, 321 ; Apology of 
 Times " characteristically mean," 322 ; 
 Conclusion of speech, Sir J. Hannen's 
 graceful compliment, 323 ; Sir H. 
 James upon, 324, 325, 326, 327, 331, 
 332. 338, 339 
 
 Delahuiit, Mrs. {Miss Reytwlds) {P.W.), 
 "whose career will be traced through 
 the country by the deeds which followed 
 her agitation ; Attorney - General's 
 speech ; Sir Charles Russell upon, 201 ; 
 Mrs. Delahunt's encounter with 
 Attorney-General, 301 
 
 Delaney, Patrick ( T. W. ), Informer, 
 Phoenix Park criminal, undergoing 
 life-sentence at I\Iary borough Prison ; 
 Queen's County; Examination - in - 
 chief, 97-99 ; Cross-examined by Sir 
 Charles Russell, 99, 100 ; By Mr. 
 Davitt, loi ; Re-examined by Attorney- 
 General, loi, 102 ; Pat Delaney's early 
 days— five years for highway robbery, 
 97 ; he joins Fenians, 1876, and names 
 Patrick Egan amongst Fenian leaders, 
 97 ; Delaney says Fenian circles in- 
 vited to first Land League meeting 
 held in Rotunda, Dublin, 1879, 98 ; 
 After meeting Fenians ordered not to 
 oppose League, 98 ; Mr. Matt. 
 Harris, Fenian centre for Galway, 98 ; 
 Invincible sworn to assist the cause of 
 assassination ; Pat Egan, Brennan, 
 Sheridan, Frank Byrne, Pat Molloy, 
 according to Delaney, Invincibles ; 
 Mrs. Frank Byrne and Phoenix Park 
 knives ; Tynan, No. i ; Delaney told 
 off to murder Mr. Forster, 98 ; In- 
 vincibles got money through Land 
 League, 98 ; Account of Phoenix Park 
 murder, 99 ; Delaney recognizes Egan's 
 signature ; Mr. Davitt on, 309 
 
 Dempsey, Mrs. (T.IV.), widow of man 
 murdered by moonlighters for taking 
 Bermingham's farm after Murty Hynes, 
 16 ; Evidence of Patrick Hughes that 
 torches were lighted on night of Demp- 
 sey's funeral, 16 ; Father John Hanneffy, 
 of Riverside, Galway, denies that 
 torches were lighted or widow boy- 
 cotted, 242 
 
 Devoy, JoJni, Beach's evidence, 121, 
 
Index, 
 
 355 
 
 123 ; Delaney, 98 ; Sir Henry James I 
 
 upon, 325, 327, 328 
 Devercjix, Mayor of Waterford [P. W. ), 
 
 291 
 Dillon, John, 32 
 Dou'ling \T. W.), Kerry man, shot at by 
 
 moonlighters ; Dowhng says leaguers 
 
 not moonlighters, 37 
 
 EgaJi, Father, parish priest of Dunivy, 
 near Loughrea, president of Loughrea 
 branch of Land League ; Mr. Burke 
 of Woodford and Father Egan, 21 ; 
 On murder of Lord Clanricarde's agent 
 Blake [see Mrs. Blake's account, 27), 
 
 237 ; On story of Finlay's murder as 
 told by Coursey, &c., 18 ; Father 
 Egan explains that he thought police 
 inquiries about a coffin a trap, he was 
 in favour of a passive resistance of 
 Lord Clanricarde's tenants to eviction, 
 
 238 ; Sir H. James upon Father Egan, 
 348 
 
 Egan, Patrick, secretary of Land 
 League ; Alleged letter to Carey, 5 ; 
 Delaney says an Invincible, 98 ; Le 
 Caron's evidence, Egan, treasurer 
 of Land League in Paris, 122 ; Egan 
 tells Le Caron Fenians had helped 
 the Boers, 122 ; At Philadelphia Con- 
 vention, 125 ; Le Caron's account of 
 Egan's confidences about his escape 
 after Carey's disclosures, 127, 128 ; 
 Mr. Soames and Egan's letters, 141 ; 
 Pigott's account of Eugene Davis and 
 Egan, 150 ; Pigott's attempt in 1881 
 to blackmail Egan, 157; Sir Charles 
 Russell upon, 208 ; ]Mr. Parnell, 226 ; 
 Dr. Kenny on Egan and League 
 books, 268 ; Mr. Davitt on, 278 ; 
 Informer Farragher on, 106-139 ; Mr. 
 Foley, M.P., and, 292 ; Sir Charles Rus- 
 sell on, 206 ; Mr. Davitt's account of 
 effect made on him by Phoenix Park 
 murders, 312, 313 ; Account by Daily 
 News correspondent of his reception 
 of news, 314 ; Sir Henry James upon, 
 332. 345 
 
 Farragher, Informer {T. W.), from 
 Mayo, accuses Mr. Davitt of bribing 
 him not to pay rent, 106 ; On Egan, 
 106, 107 ; Cross-examined by Sir C. 
 Russell, 108 ; On Irish World and 
 Egan, 139 ; Farragher' s character by 
 Dr. Kenny, 268 ; Sir H. James on, 339 
 
 Farrell, Constable {T. W.), evidence 
 on Lord Mountmorres, 117 
 
 Feeley, Police-sergeant from Sligo [T. 
 W.), on Mr. Davitt, 82 
 
 Feenicks, see Informer Buckley's evi- 
 dence, 83 
 
 Ferguson, of Glasgow [P. W.), Land 
 League secretary, 255 
 
 Finerty, Irish - American, 246 ; Mr. 
 Davitt on, 283 
 
 Finlay, process-server, murdered March, 
 1886 ; ]Mrs. Finlay's evidence, 18 ; 
 Constable's evidence, 18 ; Father 
 Egan upon, 237, 238 ; Mr. Keary on, 
 240 
 
 Fitzgerald, mother and daughter {T. W.), 
 because they worked for Hegarty 
 hurt by moonlighters, 62 
 
 Fitz7?iaurice, man murdered in Kerry 
 by moonlighters ; Evidence of Xorah 
 Fitzniaurice [T. W.), 39 ; Sir Charles 
 Russell upon, 204 
 
 Fitzpatricky Martiii, 275 
 
 Flaherty, Peter, Informer [T. W.), 29 
 
 Flanagan, American Informer ( 7". W.), 
 29. 30 
 
 Flood, chairman of Longford Town 
 Commissioners [P. IV.), 292 
 
 Foley, M.P. {P. W.), on Mr. Egan's 
 cheque, 292 
 
 Ford, Patrick, oi Irish World, Attorney- 
 General upon, 6 ; Mr. Parnell and, 
 226 ; Mr. Davitt and, 297 ; Sir H. 
 James on, 338 
 
 Ford {T. W.), and moonlighters, 21 
 
 Forrester, Mr. Davitt's letter to, 278 
 
 Forster, Mr., and Pigott, 160, 161 
 
 Freely {T. W.), son killed by moon- 
 lighters, 75 
 
 Gallagher, man threatened in ;Mayo 
 by moonhghters. Ann Gallagher's 
 ( T. W. ) evidence, 75 
 
 Gallagher, Dr., {see Le Caron's evi- 
 dence), 128 
 
 Gallagher, Poor Law Guardian of 
 Strahane {P.W.), 291 
 
 Galvin, Tom[T. W.), 50 
 
 Gainbell, District Inspector of Tralee 
 [T. W.), 81 
 
 Gilhooly, Sergeant [T. W.), evidence 
 on League, 45 
 
 Godley, Father, parish priest in Kerry 
 [P. W.), 263 
 
 Greany, John, Kerry {P, W.), 264 
 
 Hannen, Sir James, President, and 
 Patrick i^Iolloy, 69 ; Protests against 
 unnecessary evidence, 79, 221, 243 ; 
 And Mr. O'Brien, 96, 247 ; Osman 
 Digna not " very relevant," 115 ; And 
 Sir C. Russell, 170 ; About Irish World, 
 179 ; Commits Coffey, 184 ; On 
 forged letters, 190 ; ^Message to Sir 
 C. Russell, 213 ; On League docu- 
 ments, 228 ; The President and Mr. 
 Harrington, 262, 272 ; And Mr. Sex- 
 ton, 291 ; Mr. John O'Connor, 288, 
 
356 
 
 Index. 
 
 289, 290 ; Compliments Mr. Davitt 
 at close of his speech, 323 ; Speech 
 at close of proceedings, 349 
 
 Ha7iiieff}', Father [P. W.), priest of River- 
 side, contradicts story of Dempsey's 
 murder {sec p. 16), 242 
 
 Haiiley, landlord ( 7". \V.), from Tippe- 
 rary, " Battering-ram on premises," 
 116 
 
 Haviinond, Mr. John {P. IV.), 292 
 
 Harris, Matt., Attorney-General on, 3, 
 4 ; " Partridge " speech, 3, 115 ; 
 Delaney on, 98 ; Letters read, 102 ; 
 Sir Charles Russell on, 209 ; Mr. Matt. 
 Harris criticizes Mr. Davitt, 299 ; 
 Cross-examined by Sir Henry James, 
 300 ; Sir Henry James upon JNIr. 
 jNIatt. Harris, 326, 336, 337 
 
 Heagley ( T. IF.), evidence favourable to 
 Land League, 23 
 
 Healy, M., 8 ; Le Caron's evidence 
 about, 124 ; Examined, 257 
 
 Heanne {T. W.)^ gives evidence con- 
 cerning Lyden's murder and meeting 
 at Mrs. Walsh's, 138 
 
 Hegarty, Jeremiah [T. W.), from Cork, 
 man boycotted for seven years, 61, 66 
 
 Herbert {T. W.), Kerry, process-server, 
 says he has been shot at ; Mr. Har- 
 rington's account of incident, 262 
 
 Herbert, Mr., land agent, near Castle- 
 island, Kerry, March 30, 1882 ; Dis- 
 trict Inspector Davis's evidence, 46; 
 Mr. Reid quotes Mr. O'Riordan's 
 speech, 48 
 
 Herds' League, see Mr. Lowden's 
 evidence concerning Secret Murder 
 Society at enmity with Land League), 
 286 
 
 Hickey, farmer ; IMurder denounced by 
 Kerry Sentinel, 37 
 
 Hoarty, Mike [T.W.) ; Evidence favour- 
 able to Land League, 30 
 
 Hobbiiis, Co7istable {T. IV.) ; Evidence 
 concerning Dr. Tanner, 66 
 
 Hog^, Mr. John Mat?ier, member of 
 committee of L L. P. U. ; Houston 
 borrows from Mr. Hogg, 294 
 
 Horan, Tim, secretary of Castleisland 
 branch of Land League ; District 
 Inspector Huggins's evidence about, 
 43 ; District Inspector Davis's evi- 
 dence as to letter of September 30, 
 i88i, from T. Horan, 46 ; Horan's 
 letter to Mr. Herbert, 47 ; Horan 
 convicted of keeping firearms, 48 ; 
 Informer O'Connor's evidence against 
 Horan, 65 ; Mr. Parnell explains pay- 
 ment claimed by Tim Horan, 217 ; 
 Mr. J. Ferguson upon, 255; Mr. 
 O'Connor upon, 259 ; Dr. Kenny 
 npon, 268 ; Sir H.James on, 343 
 
 Horan, Pat{T. W.), young witness, 50 
 Houston (T. IV.), Secretary of the Irish 
 Loyal and Patriotic Union ; Mr. 
 Soames relates payments ;^ 1,042 to, 
 140 ; Mr. Soames' transactions with 
 Houston, 141 ; Mr. Macdonald and 
 Houston, 143, 144 ; Houston's exami- 
 nation by Attorney-General, 145. 146 ; 
 Cross-examined by Sir C. Russell, 
 Houston admits he deliberately de- 
 stroyed all clue to original sources of 
 letters, 146 ; Houston's story of the 
 black bag, 147 ; the men downstairs, 
 
 148 ; Houston consults Lord Harting- 
 ton and makes an offer to Mr. Stead, 
 
 149 ; Houston's faith in Pigott a little 
 shaken, 149 ; Davis-Pigott letter, 149, 
 
 150 ; Mr. Pigott's evidence relating to 
 Houston, 151, 152, 154, 157 ; behind 
 Houston and Pigott there is a foul 
 conspiracy, 162-169 ; Pigott's indigna- 
 tion at Houston's breach of faith, 168 ; 
 Mr. Houston is not allowed to make a 
 statement, 169 ; Mr. Soames cross- 
 examined by Sir C. Russell upon his 
 dealings with Houston, 171 ; Mr. 
 Houston professes himself ready for 
 cross-examination, and is honoured by 
 the President with an expression of 
 approbation, 171 ; Sir Charles Russell's 
 criticism upon, 211 ; Mr. Hogg, of 
 I.L.P.U., examined by Sir C. Russell, 
 states that he lent Houston money 
 without knowing his object, 294 ; Mr. 
 Houston and " Parnellism and Crime," 
 295 ; Houston and Dr. Macguire, 295 ; 
 Union books and Houston, 296 
 
 Huggiiis, District- Inspector {T. IV.), evi- 
 dence of outrages, 43 
 
 I Hughes, Patrick, Constable {T. IV.), evi- 
 
 ' dence about Dempsey outrage, 16 ; 
 
 I Story contradicted, 23 
 
 i Hussey, Kerry landlord ( T IV.), peaceful 
 
 ! condition of Kerry by Mr. Hussey 's 
 account before League, 58, 59 ; Mr. 
 
 ] Hussey does not think that he became 
 unpopular through demohshing his 
 tenants' houses, 60 ; Mr. Kelleher's 
 
 I account of Mr. Hussey, 72 ; Mr. 
 
 ' Hussey's treatment of Costelloe, 204 
 Hynes, Murty, man who took farm from 
 which Bermingham was evicted, but 
 left it in obedience to League, 16 
 
 Informers— ]dL\n^s Mannion, ex-Fenian, 
 gives evidence about Lyden murder 
 planned at Mrs. Walsh's, 29 ; Peter 
 Flaherty, ex-Moonlighter, 30 ; Flaner- 
 gan, American, 31 ; Thomas O'Connor, 
 65 ; boy-inform.er Walsh, 67 ; Mike 
 Burke of BalhTOuen, 69 ; Buckley 
 James, 84; lago'of Longford, 95; Pat 
 
Index, 
 
 357 
 
 Delaney, loo ; Farragher, 105 ; Tobin, 
 108 ; Colman, 176 ; Leahy, 187 
 Inglis, expert in handwriting, 141 
 IruH7i, Constable {T.W.), evidence to 
 League speeches, 12, 13 ; Cross-examined 
 by Michael Davitt, 14 
 Irish World, Attorney-General's extracts 
 from, 171-173 ; ^^Ir. Parnell and, 217, 
 218 ; Attorney-General cross-examines 
 Mr. Parnell concerning, 219, 220 
 Irishman^ Mr. W. O'Brien upon, 245 
 Jves, of New York Herald, 15-20 
 
 James, Sir Henry, speech, from 323 to 348 ; 
 Contradicts Sir C. Russell that Times 
 has shown itself consistently hostile to 
 Irish, 323 ; Causes of Irish misery re- 
 moved before 1879, therefore distress did 
 not cause disturbances, 324 ; Mr. Davitt 
 a prisoner during changes in Ireland, 
 remained unconscious of improve- 
 ments, 324 ; Fenian organization 
 joined by Mr. Davitt, after his release, 
 still party of violence, 325 ; Cablegram 
 to Parnell from trustees of Skirmishing 
 Fund result of Davitt's intercourse 
 with revolutionists, 325 ; Devoy took 
 physical force wing ; Davitt appealed 
 to agrarian selfishness — Davitt's open 
 agitation an ingredient in a treason- 
 able conspiracy, 326 ; Mr. ]Matt. 
 Harris, 326 ; Sir, Davitt, man of 
 strong will, forced his will upon Mr. 
 Parnell, parliamentarian, 327 ; Devoy 
 sends Davitt ^480 from Skirmishing 
 Fund, 327 ; Land League not an 
 organization for relief of tenants, but 
 a means for end of national inde- 
 pendence, 327 ; Devoy, of Clan-na- 
 Gael, revolutionist, goes about Ireland 
 at same time as Davitt, 328 ; quotes 
 Alexander Sullivan's remark — first 
 plank " self-government," second, j 
 "peasant proprietorship"; Land League [ 
 took advantage of distress, 329 ; Mr. i 
 Parnell sent relief money from America 1 
 to engage sympathies of a class, 
 329 ; Mr. Parnell's American tour | 
 arranged by revolutionists, 329 ; Apo- i 
 logy for Le Caron, 331 ; Results of Mr. j 
 Parnell's tour. League funds, Irish \ 
 World alliance, and foundation of 
 American branch of League, 331 ; 
 Literal meaning of ' ' bread and lead " 
 donations (see 221), 331 ; Mr. Davitt's 
 speech at Kansas against landlordism, 
 
 331 ; Davitt, Egan, and Brennan know 
 that peasants have been given arms, 
 
 332 ; Land League money spent on 
 electioneering purposes a proof of 
 Egan's power to rule matters as he 
 chose, 332 ; League imder Egan's con- 
 
 trol whilst Davitt in America, 1880, a 
 time of violent speeches and outrages, 
 332 ; Cork branch condemning a raid 
 for arms is condemned by central 
 body for meddling with matters outside 
 its sphere, 333 ; Land League activity 
 and not distress produced crime, 333 ; 
 Ferrick's murder near Ballinrobe occa- 
 sion for inflammatory speeches, 333 ; 
 Mr. Parnell's condemnation only that 
 shooting was entirely unnecessary and 
 prejudicial where there was a suitable 
 organization amongst tenants, 334 ; 
 Murders of Lord Mountmorres and 
 Downey, and IMr. Biggar's objection to 
 "shots that missed their mark," 334 ; 
 History of Boycott told by Sir H. 
 James, 335 ; Sir H. James on 
 Mr. Matt. Harris, 335, 336, 337 ; 
 O'Donovan Rossa's want of reticence 
 not his crimes cause of his expulsion 
 from Skirmishing Fund, 337 ; Ford 
 (Patrick) real author of dynamite 
 outrages — on secret societies and 
 Father O'Donovan's action in dis- 
 solving his branch of League, 338 ; on 
 informer Farragher and Mr. Davitt, 
 339 ; ]Mr. Matt. Harris and Kennedy, 
 also on Mrs. Blake of Connemara, 
 
 339 ; blames Sir Charles Russell for 
 curtailing his quotation from Shake- 
 speare, 340 ; on Lyden murder, and 
 ]Mrs. Walsh's preference of death for 
 her sons rather than that they should 
 become informers ; homage to crime, 
 
 340 ; Sir H. James supports Le Caron's 
 account of Mr. Parnell's message to 
 Clan-na-Gael, 340 ; on Irishman and 
 its abominable language, 341 ; United 
 Ireland, 342 ; by undertaking to defend 
 prisoners accused of agrarian outrage 
 League encouraged tenants to commit 
 crime, 342 ; on League books and 
 funds, ;i^iS3.ooo unaccounted for, 342 ; 
 ' ' Where were the books showing pay- 
 ments?" Tim Horan's letter again, 
 343 ; ' ' ]Mr. Parnell convert Fenianism 
 into Constitutionalism ? All he had 
 done was to convert Fenianism into 
 moonlighting," 344; Egan paymaster 
 to Invincibles, 345 ; alludes slightly to 
 Pigott's letters, 345 ; " The fearless 
 patriot R.C.C.," Fathers Egan and 
 Considine especially, 346 ; Sir H. 
 James's peroration, 348 
 
 Jennings {P. W.), Secretary of Land 
 
 League, Clonbur, 235 
 Joyce, Mike {T.W.), boycotted for 
 
 taking a farm after tenant's eviction, 24 
 
 Keagh, Pat (P. W.), evidence, 242 
 Keary, Mr. , Woodford merchant ; Denies 
 
35S 
 
 Index. 
 
 story of Finlay's mock funeral, and 
 explains declining to provide coffin, 
 242 {see story as told by constables, 
 18) 
 
 Kelieher, Conielius {T. \\ .), whistled at 
 because he works for Hegarty, 62 
 
 Kelly, Father, " Get the hot water 
 ready," 274 
 
 Kaimare, Lord, evidence of Mr. Len- 
 nard, his agent, 40 
 
 Kennedy, Mike, America, hands Mr. 
 Parnell " five dollars for bread, twenty 
 for lead,"' 221 
 
 Kennedy, Pat [T. W.), 27 
 
 Kennedy, Mr. John, Town Councillor 
 of Loughrea {^P. IV.) ; States murder 
 of Sergeant Linton not an agrarian 
 crime, 234 
 
 Kennedy, Father {T. W.), 32 
 
 Kennedy, John {T. W.), Kerry farmer, 
 52, 53 
 
 Aelly, Father, priest of IVIoygarna 
 " Get the hot water ready," 274 
 
 Kenny, Dr., President of Castleisland ; 
 branch of Land League fined for 
 keeping firearms, 48 ; Sir Charles 
 Russell upon letter from Horan to 
 Kenny, 206 ; As treasurer of Land 
 League from February to October, 
 1881, he signed Tim Koran's cheque 
 but does not recollect incident, 263- 
 266 ; Thinks i\Ir. Egan has taken 
 books with him, 268 ; Dr. Kenny on 
 Farragher, 268 ; Dr. Kenny persists 
 Egan was not in Dublin, 1881 ; Dr. 
 Kenny and Le Caron, 269 
 
 Kerrigan and wife ( Times witnesses), on 
 Bailiff Huddy's murder, 22 
 
 Kerry Sentinel, Mr. Harrington's paper ; 
 Contempt of court, 35, 38 ; Condemns 
 Fitzraaurice murder, 39 ; Macauliffe's 
 outrage, 55, 56 ; Sir Charles Russell on, 
 206 
 
 Killeen, Mike, from Miltown, Clare [P. 
 W.), denies Connell's evidence, 254 
 
 Kilmainham Treaty, Captain O'Shea 
 upon, 9 
 
 Labo2ichere, Henry, Pigott's account of 
 first interview with, 152 ; Last confes- 
 sion of Pigott, 163 ; Mr. Labouchere 
 examined, 170 
 
 Lambert, Gal way landlord {T. W.), 17 
 
 Landgrabbers, I\Ir. Dillon upon, 3 ; Mr. 
 Harrington upon, 4 ; Mr. Biggar, 4 ; 
 Scrab upon Landgrabber, "a louse," 
 a "rapacious beast," a "low-life ctir," 
 a "putrid companion," 4 
 
 Lafid League — Attorney-General upon, 
 2, 3 ; League speeches are followed by 
 outrages ; Never denounce outrage ; 
 League books prove money paid to as- 
 
 sassins, 4 ; American influence, 6 ; Con- 
 stables O'Malley and Irwin on League 
 speeches, 7 ; Speech of Martin O'Hal- 
 loran condemns outrages, 7 ; League 
 attacked by secret societies, 13 ; 
 Rafferty does not attribute outrage 
 upon him to League, 16'; Heagley 
 speaks of respectability of members, 
 23 ; Leonard, Lord Kenmare's agent,, 
 considers League has caused outrages, 
 41 ; Secret inner circle, 47 ; District 
 Inspector Crane says League introduced 
 resistance to evictions, 55 ; District 
 Inspector Wright of same opinion, 57 ; 
 Hussey says Kerry peaceful Arcadia 
 before League, 59 ; Canon Griffin, 63 ; 
 Informer O'Connor on inner circle, 
 64 ; Informer Mike Burke connects 
 murder of Lord Mountmorres with 
 League, 71 ; David Freely says mur- 
 der of his son not due to League, 76 ; 
 Miss Thompson, landowner, Mr. 
 Richards, 78 ; Informer lago against 
 League, 95 ; Pat Delaney incriminates 
 League, 98, 99 ; Fenians denounce 
 League, 99 ; Captain Plunkett against 
 League, 105 ; Dennis Tobin, informer, 
 109 ; Captain Slacke, in ; Sir Charles 
 Russell on foundation of, 197-200 ; 
 League circular warning people against 
 crime, 1880, 216 ; Mr. Parnell on dis- 
 organization at League office when 
 Mr. Davitt and he were in prison, 
 217 ; Archbishop Walsh says League 
 denounce and put down crime, 
 229 ; League makes crime less fre- 
 quent, says Mr. Cav.ley, 232 ; Father 
 O'Donovan says League denounces 
 crime, 241 ; ]Nlr. Nolan says League 
 prevents crime, 243 ; ISIr. W. O'Brien 
 says there would have been famine and 
 civil war \\-ithout League, 245 ; Mr. 
 Harrington quotes League denuncia- 
 tions of crime, 262 ; D. F. O'Connor 
 shows denunciatory documents, 263 ; 
 Greany's evidence, 264 ; Father Har- 
 rington, 265 ; Father Lawler's evidence 
 in favour of League, 264 ; Condition of 
 Mayo before League, 273 ; Rules and 
 principles, 277 ; Mr. Lowden on Herds' 
 League and its opposition to Land 
 League, 285 ; Mr. Gallager, Poor Law 
 guardian of Strabane, Mr. O'Hagan, 
 chairman of Monoghan Commis- 
 sioners, Mr. Ryan, Mayor of Cork, 
 Mayor of Limerick, Mayor of Water- 
 ford, Mayor of Kilkenny. Mayor of 
 Wexford, Mayor of Sligo, Chairman of 
 Maryborough Commissioners, Chair- 
 man of TuUamore Commissioners^ 
 Mr. Delahunt of Wexford, all give 
 evidence of sen-ices rendered by League^ 
 
Index. 
 
 359 
 
 291 ; Mr. Molone)' denies that any 
 money was paid through him out of 
 League funds to those who committed 
 crimes, 305 ; Sir Henrj- James on, 327, 
 329, 331, 332, 333 
 
 Larkiii, Tom, one of the defenders of 
 Saunders' "fort" — a boy of fifteen — 
 who died in prison of hardship, 240 
 
 Lawler, Father, P. P. of KilloughHn 
 (iP. IF.), considers boycotting justifi- 
 able, 264 
 
 Leagtic Books— Islv. Moloney's evidence 
 about books, 305 ; Mr. Miller, manager 
 of Charing Cross branch of National 
 Bank, 305 ; Mr. Tyrrell, Mr. Phillips, 
 Sir Henry James on books, 343 
 
 Letters, Times — 3, 4, 7; Attorney-General 
 hands President facsimile letter, 5 ; 
 shown to Captain O'Shea, 10 ; Sir 
 Charles Russell complains advertise- 
 ment of facsimile letter as Mr. Par- 
 nell's, 15 ; Convict Delaney professes to 
 recognize Egan's signature, 100 ; Mr. 
 Soames's evidence about, 140 ; Pigott's 
 evidence about, 151, 152, 153 ; Pigott's 
 confession that letters are his iforgeries, 
 167 ; Mr. Parnell denies letters, 169 ; 
 Mr. O'Kelly denies letter to Egan, 170 ; 
 Mr, Campbell denies letter, 190 ; Sir 
 Charles Russell asks for special report, 
 171 ; Mr. Davitt, 167 ; Sir Charles 
 Russell, 211; ?Ir. Davitt upon, 321, 
 322 ; Sir Henry James upon, 345 
 
 Leahy — man murdered for taking an 
 evicted farm — Mrs. Leahy's evidence, 
 
 36 ; District-Inspector Craig's evidence, 
 
 37 ; Kerry Sentiiiel denounces murder, 
 37 ; Mr. Lynes's evidence, 263 
 
 Leazy, inforrner (7'. 11'.), ex-member of 
 Fenian Supreme Council, 186-187 
 
 Leimard, Matthew, put in a coffin by 
 moonhghters, and told to pray for his 
 soul, 24 
 
 Leona-rd, Maurice, Lord Kenmare's 
 
 agent, evidence, 40 ; Considers he 
 
 . knows Ireland better than }vlr. Balfour 
 
 or General Gordon, 41, 42 ; Doesn't 
 
 think much of General BuUer, 42 
 
 Lewis, Mr., of Woodford (2". W.), evi- 
 dence, 17 ; Mr. Roche upon, 239 
 
 Lewis, Mr. G. H., Pigott's interview with, 
 152 ; Mr. Lewis's account of Pigott, 
 170 
 
 Loftus, Tipperary farmer {T. W.), 175 
 
 Lydeii — man murdered by moonlighters — 
 Mrs. Lyden's ( T. W. ) evidence, 24 ; 
 James Mannion, informer, says murder 
 planned at Mrs. Walsh's, 28 ; Mr. 
 Davitt, 283 ; Sir H. James on, 340 
 
 Lynes, Mr. [P. IV.), of Killarney, evi- 
 dence of Davitt's and Healey's denun- 
 ciation of crime ; also that Leahy's 
 
 murder was deplored by leaguers who 
 attended his funeral, 263 
 
 Macauliffe {T.W.^, Kerry man, brother 
 of a process-server, shot in the arm by 
 moonlighters, 55 ; Kerry Sentinefs 
 condemnation of outrage, 55 
 
 Macdonald, Mr. J. C, manager of The 
 Ti7nes, examination by Attorney- 
 General, 142 ; Agreement with Hous- 
 ton, 143 ; ' ' Every journahst must choose 
 his opportunity," 143 ; "I particularly 
 avoided the subject of origins," 144; 
 Articles written " in the ordinary course 
 of business," 145; ^Slr. Davitt on Mr. 
 jMacdonald 
 
 Macdonald, name mentioned by Informer 
 Flaherty as one belonging to a leaguer 
 who took part in outrages, 29 
 
 McArdle, District - Inspector, Mayo 
 
 [T.W.),7S 
 
 Macaulay, Informer Colman s charge 
 against him, 177-178 ; Mr. Reid quotes 
 Macaulay's denial in Freeman s Jour- 
 nal that he belonged to League, 180 
 
 McCarthy [T.W.), "a few grains of 
 powther," 37 
 
 McCarthy, Mr. Justin, M.P., examined, 
 259 
 
 McCormack, Dr., Bishop of Galvvay 
 {P. W.), League destroyed criminal 
 societies, 232 
 
 McHale, Father P. W.), from Crossma- 
 lina, " People's misery convinced me a 
 tenants' combination necessary," 274 
 
 Maloney, Father {P.W.), president of 
 local branch of Land League, 233 ; 
 Cross-examined by Sir H. James, 
 Father Maloney gives his views of 
 strong speech and boycotting, 234 
 
 Mannion, James, informer (7". W.), evi- 
 dence as to outrages in which he shared, 
 28 
 
 Martin, on landgrabbers, 3 
 
 Mayne, Mr. , M. P. for Tipperary, 287 
 
 Meehan, Constable {T.W.), evidence con- 
 cerning Curtin's murder, 39 
 
 Miller, Mr., manager of Charing Cross 
 branch of National Bank, on League 
 books, 305 
 
 Meehan, chairman of Maryborough Com- 
 missioners [P. IV.), evidence in favour 
 of League, 291 
 
 Mitchell, Mary (T. W.), boycotted, 137 
 
 Milcarren, evidence of Informer Flaherty, 
 29 
 
 Molloy, Pat {T.W.), sent to prison for 
 not obeying subpoena, 69 ; Molloy 's 
 evidence consists in denying first state- 
 ment, 73-74 ; Delaney names Molloy 
 as one of the Invincibles, 98 
 
 Molo7iey, Mr. Parnell states last person in 
 
36o 
 
 Index. 
 
 whose possession League books were 
 seen, 224-255 ; In witness-box, 305 ; 
 Mr. Maloney did not order destruction 
 of books, 305 ; Sir H. James on Mr. 
 Maloney's supposed possession of 
 books, 343 
 
 Mo7iogha7i, farmer, Connemara [P. IV.), 
 weeps whilst describing famine scenes, 
 236 
 
 Morgan{T. W.), Bermingham's herd boy- 
 cotted, 34 
 
 Moro?iey, Constable {T. IV.), evidence 
 concerning Dr. Tanner's description of 
 Hegarty, 66 
 
 Moroney, man murdered by moonlighters, 
 see Father Stewart's evidence, 255 
 
 Moriarty, Dr., Kerry, ISIr. Huggins, 
 inspector, reports Doctor's "ferocious 
 utterances," 43-44 
 
 AIo2i7it7no}'res, Lord, Galway landlord 
 murdered, September, 1880. Evidence 
 of Lady Mountmorres, 32 ; Constable's 
 evidence, 33 ; Evidence of Constable 
 Farrell, 117 ; of Informer Burke, 70-72 ; 
 Sir C. Russell upon, 204 ; Sir H. 
 James on, 334 
 
 Mulcarreii, named by Informer Flaherty 
 as one who joined in outrages, 29 
 
 Mullett, see Informer Farragher's evi- 
 dence, 106 
 
 Mulq7ieeny, George, Captain O'Shea's 
 evidence, 11 ; Mulqueeny's evidence 
 concerning F. Byrne after and before 
 Phcenix Park murders, 188-189 ; Mr. 
 Parnell's cheque, 11, 189 , 
 
 Mti7-phy, Stib-bispector ( T. IV.), 32 
 
 Murphy, Father, see Brown's evidence 
 concerning, 51, 256 
 
 Murphy, Pat (T. W.), his experiences 
 with moonlighters, 55 
 
 Nally, ' ' Scrab," vehement abuse of land- 
 grabbers, 3, 4, 7, 8 ; Constable Irwin's 
 opinion of, 13 : O'Malley calls " a sort 
 of drunkard," 14; Mr. Ives' opinion, 
 21 ; Mr. Parnell upon, 220-227 ; Mr. 
 Davitt, 284 ; Sir H. James on, 333 
 
 " Naito7i," The, Mr. T. D. Sullivan's 
 paper, 254 
 
 Natio7ial League., " only Land League re- 
 christened," 3, 26 ; Sir H. James on, 
 
 345 
 
 New Yo7'k Herald, Mr. Ives, special cor- 
 respondent of, 15 
 
 Nola7i, Mr. John, of Ballynoonan, Gal- 
 way {P. W. ), evidence for League, 242 
 
 OBrieii, William, U7iited h-eland, 87 ; 
 Mr. O'Brien's speech in Court, 93 ; 
 Sir James Hannen upon, 96 ; ]Mr. 
 O'Brien examined by Mr. Reid, 243; 
 States that League prevented famine 
 
 and civil war in 1880, 245 ; Views on 
 boycotting, 245 ; League meeting called 
 to check outrages, 246 ; American tour, 
 246 ; Cross-examined by Attorney- 
 General, 24.6; "The Woodford spirit 
 has made England what it is," 246 
 
 O' Brien, J. F. Xavier, M. P. , condemned 
 twenty-two years ago to be hung, 
 drawn, and quartered, evidence, 275 
 
 O'' Co7i7iell, Ha7inah, old woman, boy- 
 cotted, 91 
 
 O'Conncll, Father (P. W.), priest from 
 Connemara, evidence concerning the 
 servants of Mrs. Blake of Connemara — 
 their misery and her exactions, 230 ; 
 On Lyden's murder, denies meetings of 
 League at Mrs. Walsh's, as stated by 
 Informer Mannion (see 28), 231 
 
 0'Con7tor, D. F., secretary of Abbey- 
 dorney branch of League (P. W.), pro- 
 duces League books and documents 
 showing how League denounced crime, 
 263 
 
 OCo7i}ior, T. P., 2. ; see Le Caron's 
 evidence, 124 ; examined by Mr, Lock- 
 wood, 265 
 
 O' Connor, Father, P. P. of Firies, Kerry, 
 Constable's evidence concerning, 28 ; 
 Father O'Connor, president of local 
 branch of League, gives evidence con- 
 cerning Curtins, 267 ; unsatisfactory 
 explanation of his coldness after mur- 
 der, 267 
 
 O'Connor, Kerry farmer (7". W.), "clears 
 his character,'' 37 
 
 O'Connor, Arthur {P. IV.), in America, 
 258 ; Evidence on Koran's letter, 260 
 
 0'Co7i7ior, yoh7i, ^I.P. , police witnesses 
 accuse Mr. J. O'Connor of cheering 
 Poff and Barrett, accused of BrowTi's 
 murder, 51, 52 ; Mr. Harrington's view 
 of Poff's innocence, 61 ; Examination 
 of yix. J. O'Connor, 287-290 ; Mr. |. 
 O'Connor's account of Poff and Barrett 
 incident, 288 ; He visits Curtins in 
 their trouble, 288 ; President's reproof, 
 290 ; Mr. J. O'Connor explains speech 
 on Prince of Wales visit, 292 
 
 O'Con/ior, Thomas, informer {T. W.), 
 evidence, 64, 65 ; Cross-examined, 88- 
 90 ; letter to his brother about swearing 
 " quare things," 90 
 
 G Comior, Henry, secretary of Causeway 
 branch of League [P.IV.), produces 
 books to prove outrage-mongers not 
 members as stated by Ti7nes, 268 
 
 0' Do7iovan, Father., priest of Corrofin, 
 Clare, president of branch of League 
 {P.W,), evidence concerning misery 
 of Major Moloney's tenants, 241 ; Cross- 
 examined by Sir H. James, Father 
 O' Donovan says he denounced outrages 
 
Index, 
 
 361 
 
 forty Sundays running, 242 ; Sir H. 
 James on, 338 
 
 O Donovan Rossa, Mr. Davitt on, 310 ; 
 Sir H, James on, 337 
 
 ODonnell, Dominic, landlord, Mayo 
 {T.W.), when bailiffs hestitate to 
 evict he himself drags a tenant's wife 
 out of bed, 103 
 
 CHagan {P. W.), evidence favourable to 
 League, 291 
 
 OKeefe, Mayor of Limerick [P. W^, 291 
 
 O Kelly, M.P., see Le Caron's evidence, 
 121 ; Denies letter to Egan, 298 
 
 O'Malley, Bernard, Constable (T. I^.). 
 evidence, 8-14 
 
 O'Riordan, 48 
 
 O'Shea, Captain [T. W.), evidence of, 12 ; 
 Alulqueeny's information, 11 ; Captain 
 O'Sheasayshe destroyed all memoranda 
 of Kilmainham treaty at Sir William 
 Harcourt's advice, 11 ; Mulqueeny's 
 account of the- information he gave 
 Captain O'Shea, 189 ; Sir Charles 
 Russell on Captain O'Shea and Mr. 
 Pamell, 201 
 
 Parnell, Mr. Charles, M.P., Attorney- 
 General quotes Mr. Parnell's speech at 
 Ennis advising avoidance of land- 
 grabbers, 4; Allusion to Times \q.\X&:s, 
 4 ; Mr. Parnell could have stopped 
 outrage, 5 ; Attorney-General describes 
 Captain O'Shea's evidence, 5 ; Mr. 
 Parnell felt bound to satisfy American 
 paymasters, 7 ; Captain O'Shea's evi- 
 dence, 9-12 ; Le Caron states jVIr. 
 Parnell's American tour under direction 
 of Clan-na-Gael, 122 ; Le Caron's 
 account of interview with Mr. Parnell 
 April, 1881, 123 ; Had ceased to believe 
 that anything but force would bring 
 about redemption of Ireland, 123 ; Le 
 Caron modifies statement about Ameri- 
 can tour, 133 ; Mr. Parnell's views as a 
 revolutionist see on Le Caron, 134 ; Mr. 
 Parnell's photograph, Le Caron alleges 
 given by him, 136 ; How !Mr. Soames 
 verified ]Mr. Parnell's signature, 140 ; 
 Firm belief of Mr. Soames upon the 
 genuineness of ]\Ir Parnell's signature, 
 141 ; Pigott's grievance against Mr, 
 Parnell, 142 ; Mr, Macdonald's view of 
 ]Mr. Parnell's alleged letters, 143 ; Mr. 
 Macdonald thinks the absence of 
 envelopes suspicious, 144, 145 ; Mr. 
 Houston does not consider ]Mr. Parnell 
 entitled to any consideration, 146 ; 
 Pigott states how he first hears of Mr, 
 Parnell's letter, 151 ; Pigott's account 
 of his interview with Mr. Parnell, 152 ; 
 Pigott wishes to save ls\x. Parnell and 
 his associates, 155 ; Mr. Parnell's 
 
 genuine letters to Pigott about Irish- 
 man, 157 ; Mr. Parnell after Pigott's 
 flight, 166 ; He goes into witness-box 
 and denies letters, 167 ; Mulqueeny's 
 evidence about Mr. Parnell's cheque to 
 F. Byrne, 187 ; Sir C. Russell on 
 Mr. Parnell, 197, 201, 202, 203, 208 ; 
 Mr. Parnell's examination-in-chief, 214- 
 
 218 ; Cross-examination by Attorney- 
 General, 218-226 ; Re-examined by 
 Sir C. Russell, 226-228 ; Mr. Parnell 
 contradicts Le Caron's statement about 
 American tour, 215 ; About interview 
 and photograph, 217 ; Mr. Parnell on 
 Phcenix Park murders, 217 ; on Tim 
 Koran's letter, 219 ; on Clan-na-Gael, 
 
 219 ; onjohn Devoy, 221 ; on Mr. Red- 
 mond, 222 ; on the Irishman, 22-^ ; "I 
 have always thought physical force 
 useless and criminal," 224 ; ''I was 
 trying to mislead the House," 224 ; 
 Explanation of this statement, 225 ; 
 League books, 224, 225, 227 ; Mr. 
 Davitt describes Parnell as too con- 
 servative, 277 ; Mr. Parnell withdraws 
 his defence, 296 ; Mr. Parnell cross- 
 examined about League books by At- 
 torney-General, 296; Mr. Parnell's corre- 
 spondence examined by Mr. Campbell, 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor, Mr. Graham, 
 and Mr. Asquith, 306 ; :\Ir. Davitt's 
 speech, allusion to Sir. Parnell's, 311- 
 313 ; Sir Henry James on, 325, 327, 
 329, 331, 334, 340, 344 
 
 Phillips, ex-Land League clerk and wife 
 about Land League books, state Mrs. 
 Moloney took them away 
 
 Pigott, Richard, ordered to withdraw 
 during Mr. Soames' evidence, 141 ; Mr. 
 Soames' evidence concerning, 142 ; 
 Mr. Macdonald's, 144 ; Houston's, 146, 
 147 ; Pigott enters witness-box, 150 ; 
 Story about Eugene Davis, 151 ; 
 Meeting with Maurice :Murphy and 
 story of black bag, 151 ; Pigott's oath, 
 151 ; Pigott's story of interview with 
 Messrs. Parnell, Lewis, and Labouchere, 
 152, 153 ; Pigott and Archbishop Walsh, 
 154, 155 ; " Hesitency," 154-159 ; ^^r. 
 Pigott "warns" ~Slv. Egan in 1887, 
 159 ; Pigott and Mr. Forster, 159, 160 ; 
 Pigott's disappearance, 161 ; Air. 
 Labouchere receives Pigott's confes- 
 sion, 163, 164 ; Letter from Pigott's 
 housemaid "all is consumed," 163; 
 Confession read by Mr. Cunninghame, 
 166, 169 ; Air. Davitt upon future re- 
 velations concerning his correspond- 
 ence, 321 
 
 Rafferty, John, Gahvay peasant {T. W.), 
 " corded " by moonlighters, 16 
 
362 
 
 Index. 
 
 Reagh ( T. IV. ), ear cut off by moon- 
 lighters, 35 
 
 Redmond, Mr. W., M.P., Sir C. Russell 
 on, 207 ; Mr. Parnell, 222 ; Evidence 
 of Constable Webb of Mr. Redmond's 
 proceedings as Mr. Mondred, 176 
 
 Reynolds, Miss (Mrs. Delahunt), presi- 
 dent of Ladies Laud League [P. W. ), 
 Sir C. Russell condemns Attorney- 
 General's statement that outrages fol- 
 lowed her, 201 ; INIrs. Delahunt ex- 
 amined by Attorney-General, 301 
 
 Rice, District Inspector {T.W.), Evi- 
 dence concerning r>*Ir. John O'Connor's 
 cheering Poff and Barrett, 52 
 
 Richards, Mr., of Wexford, landlord, 79 
 
 Roche, \V., Buckley's account of his 
 attempt to murder Roche, 84 ; Roche's 
 own account, 118 
 
 Roche, Mr. Johii, of W^oodford {P. W.), 
 on "Doctor'' Tully and Vandeleur 
 evictions, 238 ; denies constable's story, 
 (see p. 18; of Finlay's mock funeral, 
 238 ; Mr. Roche's idea of justifiable resis- 
 tance, 239 ; On Tom Larkin, 240 
 
 " Roosters," 53 
 
 Ross, Maho?i, landlord and agent ( T. W. ), 
 house blown up, 23 
 
 Ruane, named by Informer ^Mannion as 
 an instigator of outrages, 29, 177 
 
 Russell, Sir Charles, cross-examines 
 Lady Mountmorres, 33 ; CoUetty, 36 ; 
 Mr. Hussey, 59 ; boy-informer Walsh, 
 67; :Mike' Burke, 71; Pat Molloy, 
 74 ; ]Miss Thompson, 77-79 ; protests 
 against unnecessary evidence, and a 
 shght difference with Mr. Justice Smith, 
 80 ; cross-examines Informer Buckley, 
 84 ; Informer O'Connor, 89 ; Informer 
 Jago, 95-97 ; Informer Delany,99 ; In- 
 former Farragher, 107 ; Captain Slack, 
 112 ; Constable Farrell, 117 ; Mike 
 Roche, 118 ; LeCaron, 129-135 ; Hous- 
 ton, 146-149'; Pigott, 154-161 ; "Behind 
 Houston and Pigott there is a foul 
 conspiracy," 162 ; examines Mr. Par- 
 nell, 169 ; cross - examines Mr. 
 Soames, 171 ; Asks for special report 
 on letters, 171 ; Cross-examines In- 
 former Colman, 178 ; Speech for the 
 defence, 190-213; "Attempt to indict 
 a whole nation," 191 : The Times 
 methods of collecting evidence, 191 ; 
 Ireland before 1879, 192 ; Irish agra- 
 rian system condemned by Swift, 
 Berkeley, Lord Townshend, Arthur 
 Young, Lord Clare, General Gordon, 
 193 ; Landlords did nothing but eject, 
 . 195 ; Foundation of League and :Mr. 
 Parnell, 127 ; Free and open pro- 
 gramme, 198; "A grave scandal," 
 199 ; 'On boycotting, 198 ; "What a 
 
 wretched thing of sheds and patches,'* 
 199 ; Work of the League relief and 
 organization. 200 ; on Captain O'Shea, 
 201-202 ; National League, 202 ; On 
 murders of Luke Dillon and 
 Lord Mountmorres, 203 ; In not 
 a single case has murder or complicity 
 in it been brought home to the League, 
 203 ; Curtin and Fitzmaurice outrages^ 
 204 ; Delaney's evidence and Le 
 Caron's, 205 ; On Egan, Mr. Sexton^ 
 Mr. Davitt, Mr. O'Kelly, Dr. Kenny^ 
 206; "Infamy," 206; Mr. Mat. 
 Harris, Mr. Harrington, and T. D. 
 Sullivan, 207 ; Irish emigrants, 208 ; 
 Le Caron "a living he," 209; The 
 Letters, 211; Peroration, "a great 
 speech worthy of a great occasion," 
 213 ; Discussion with President on 
 League financial documents, 228 ; 
 claims to see books of Irish Loyal 
 Patriot Association, and upon Presi- 
 dent's decision withdraws from case, 
 297 
 Ryan, Mayor of Cork [P. W.), gives 
 evidence in favour of League, 291 
 
 Sala, G. A., witness to Pigott's con- 
 fession, 163 
 
 Sanders, agent {T. W.), 108 
 
 Saunders, Woodford man who defends 
 his house, 240 ; see Tom Larkin' s boy 
 who dies from hardship, sent to prison 
 for defending Saunders' " fort," 240 
 
 Scanlon, Patrick {P. IV.), from Kerry^ 
 witness to distress before League, 275 
 
 ^' Scrab,''' see Nally 
 
 Scully, Mr. Vincent {P. IF.), landlord 
 and magistrate, resigns because of 
 Coercion Acts, 276 
 
 Sexton, Mr. M.P., Lord Mayor of Dublin, 
 Le Caron's evidence, 135 ; Sir Charles 
 Russell on, 206 ; says Le Caron's story 
 an absolute fabrication, 270 ; scene 
 with Attorney-General, 291 ; cross- 
 examines Mr. Soames, 306 
 
 Sheehy, Informer Buckley's storj- con- 
 cerning intended murder of, 83 
 
 Sheridan, Loftus states he visited him 
 in disguise, 175 ; Sir Charles Russell, 
 upon, 205 
 
 S la eke, Captain [T.VV.], commissioner 
 for eight counties ; evidence against 
 League, in -113 
 
 Slayne i^T.W.'), money-lender, beaten 
 by moonlighters, 75 
 
 Smith {T.V/.), Lord Sligo's agent 
 shoots intending murderer, b2 
 
 Soames, Mr., solicitor of The TimeSy 
 enters witness-box, 134 ; evidence con- 
 cerning " facsimile letter," 140 ; money 
 transactions with Houston, 140 ; Satis- 
 
Index. 
 
 2>^5 
 
 fies himself the Parnell, Davitt, and 
 Egan letters are genuine, 141 ; detects 
 ' Pigott's interview with Mr. Labou- 
 chere, 142 ; cross-examined by Sir 
 Charles Russell, 142; Admits he " made 
 no inquiries into Pigott's character," 
 164 ; examined upon his connection 
 with Pigott and Houston, 171 ; Re- 
 lates the story of his intercourse with 
 Timothy CofTey, 185 ; cross-examined 
 by iVIr. Sexton upon money paid by 
 Tivies to witnesses, 307 
 
 Sulliva?/., T. D., M.P., ex-Mayor of 
 Dublin, evidence in chief, 252 ; cross- 
 examined by Mr. Murphy, 252-254 ; 
 " No man is a fiend,'' 254 
 
 Sullivan [T.W.\ Kerry bog-ranger 
 " League took my part," 34 
 
 Sullivan, Jeremiah [T.XV.'), Kerry 
 man assaulted by moonlighters, 54 
 
 Sullivan, of Meath (brother of T. D. 
 SulUvan), examined, 275 
 
 Tanner, Dr., M,P., evidence of two 
 constables concerning Dr. Tanner's 
 picturesque abuse of Hegarty, 66 ; Dr. 
 Tanner's examination ; admits that to 
 the "best of his abihties " he has 
 denounced landgrabbers, 301 ; speci- 
 mens of Dr. Tanner's oratorv, 302 
 
 Ta?mer, Major [T. W.), brother of Dr. 
 Tanner, land-agent in Tipperary, 
 evidence against League, 94 
 
 Tarpey {P. W.), from Ballyglass, Galway, 
 denies evidence given by Charleton 
 (see 21) of brutal conduct of people 
 after murder of Constable Burke, 232 
 
 Teahan {T. \V.), hotel-keeper and cattle- 
 dealer of Tralee, says he was boycotted 
 through private jealousy, and not by 
 direction of the League, 45 
 
 Thompson, Miss {T. W.), owner of land 
 in Kerry, evidence against League, 78 
 
 Tivies (^Witnesses see Witnesses), At- 
 torney-General says The Times has 
 made every possible inquiry into the 
 genuineness of letters, 5 ; Air. Soames 
 of [see Soames) ; Mr. Alacdonald of 
 {see Macdonald) ; Pat Molloy tricks on, 
 73 ; Houston and, 143 ; Pigott and 
 " Parnellism and Crime," 145 ; Sir 
 Charles Russell upon, 191 ; Sir Henry 
 James upon, 323 ; Air. Davitt upon, 
 
 319 
 
 Tobin, Dennis [T. W.), informer, ex- 
 moonlighter from Limerick, 108-110 
 
 Toole, Mayor of Waterford 
 
 Tunbridge, Inspector, evidence concern- 
 ing a bank-note traced from Byrne to 
 Walsh, 119 
 
 Tynan,, No. i, Delaney's evidence, 98 ; 
 portrait recognized, 102 ; Le Caron's 
 
 evidence, 128 ; Tynan seen in Miss 
 Reynolds' company by two constables, 
 137 
 
 Wallace, Constable, murdered at Ardra- 
 ghan, county Galway {see police 
 evidence, 21) ; Mr. Roche's evidence, 
 232 
 
 Walker, Mr., agent for The Times 
 (see Pat Molloy's evidence), 74 
 
 Walsh, yaines {T.W.), boy-informer, 
 67 
 
 Walsh, Mrs. {sec Mannion's evidence 
 that Airs, Walsh's house was L-eague 
 meeting-place for planning outrages, 
 28) ; Young Walsh hanged for Lyden's 
 murder ; Heanne's evidence, 138 ; 
 Davitt's evidence, 283; Father O'Con- 
 nell's evidence, 231 
 
 Walsh, John (see Inspector Tunbridge's 
 evidence, 119) ; Head-constable Wilkin- 
 son's, 119 
 
 Walsh, Dublin, solicitor, proves money 
 paid to relations of the men executed 
 and imprisoned for Phoenix Park 
 murders, 138 
 
 Walsh, Thomas, ex-convict employed by 
 Air. Soames to hunt for documents 
 damaging to Air, Parnell, 179 
 
 Walsh, Dr., Archbishop of Dublin, 
 Pigott's correspondence with, 154-155 ; 
 evidence, 228 ; views on boycotting, 
 230 
 
 Witnesses for The Times — Head-Con- 
 stable Bernard O'AIalley, 7-14 ; Con- 
 stable Irwin, 9-13 ; Captain O'Shea, 
 9-12 ; Air. Ives of A'ezj York Herald, 
 
 15 ; John Rafferty, Galway peasant, 
 
 16 ; Sub-Inspector Dominic Barry, 16 ; 
 Mrs, Dempsey, widow of man mur- 
 dered, 16 ; Airs. Conners, 17 ; Mr. 
 Lewis, landlord, Woodford, 17 ; Mr. 
 Lambert, landlord, Galway, 17; Thomas 
 White, peasant, Galway, 17 ; Coursey 
 of Loughrea, 18 ; Constables Beattie, 
 Nally, and Gibbon, 18 ; District In- 
 spector Bell, 19 ; Police-officer Charle- 
 ton, 21 ; Air. Burke, landlord, Wood- 
 ford, 21 ; Kerrigan and wife, Alayo 
 peasants, 22 ; Constable Hugh Kelly, 
 23 ; Constable Patrick Bolger, 23 ; Mr. 
 Botterill, Galway landlord, 23 ; Heag- 
 ley, peasant, 23 ; Alatt. Lennard, stew- 
 ard, 23; Tom Connair, peasant, 24; Airs. 
 Lyden, widow of man murdered, 24 ; 
 Alike Joyce, 24 ; Airs. Blake of Con- 
 nemara, 25 ; Air. Hughes, car pro- 
 prietor, 26 ; Airs. J. H. Blake, widow- 
 of Lord Clanricarde's agent, 27 ; Pat 
 Kennedy, peasant, 28 ; Farmer James 
 Mannion, ex-Fenian, 28 ; Peter Fla- 
 
364 
 
 Index. 
 
 herty, ex-Fenian, 29 ; Edward Flana- 
 gan, Informer, 30 ; Mike Hoarty, ex- 
 Fenian, 30 ; Constable Creagh, 30 ; 
 Ford, 31 ; Sub - Inspector Murphy, 
 Woodford district, 32 ; Farmer Ken- 
 nedy, Gahvay, 32; Lady Mountmorres, 
 33 ;' Constable O'Connor, 33 ; James 
 Bermingham, process-server, 33 ; Mor- 
 gan, Bermingham's herd, 34 ; Sullivan, 
 bog-ranger, 35 ; Reagh, peasant, 35 ; 
 Culoty, farmer and process-server, 
 36 ; Mrs. Leahy, widow of man mur- 
 dered, 36 ; District Inspector Craig, 37 ; 
 O'Connor, Kerry farmer, 37 ; M'Car- 
 thy, peasant, 37 ; Mrs. Hickey, widow 
 of man murdered, 37; Dowling, peasant, 
 38 ; Miss Curtin and brother, 39 ; Con- 
 stable Meehan, 39 ; Norah Fitzmau- 
 rice, daughter of murdered man, 39 ; 
 Mr. Leonard, agent of Lord Kenmare, 
 40-42 ; District Inspector Huggins, 43, 
 44 ; ]Mr. Teahan, hotel-keeper and 
 cattle dealer, Tralee, 45 ; Sergeant 
 Gilhooly, 45, 46 ; District Inspector 
 Davis, 47-49 ; ^Ir. Tom Calvin, farmer, 
 50 ; Mr. Brown, farmer, 51 ; Mrs. 
 Johanna Brown, widow of man mur- 
 dered, 51 ; District Inspector, W. H. 
 Rice, 52 ; Farmer John Kennedy, 52 ; 
 Coonahan, blacksmith, 53 ; Griffin, 
 carter, 54 ; Farmer Jeremiah Sullivan, 
 54 ; Pat ^Iurphy, " land-grabber," 55 ; 
 John Macauliffe, process-server, 55 ; 
 District Inspector Crane, 55, 56 ; Dis- 
 trict Inspector Wright, 57 ; Eugene 
 Sheehy, 58 ; IMr. Hussey, Kerry land- 
 lord, 59 ; Mr. Jeremiah Hegarty, mer- 
 chant and farmer, 61-62 ; Cornelius 
 Kelleher, Cork, labourer, 62 ; Mr. 
 Jeremiah O'Connor, 62 ; Mary Fitz- 
 gerald, Mrs. Fitzgerald, 62 ; Constable 
 Thomas Cahill, 63 ; Canon Griffin of 
 Killarney, 63 ; Thomas O'Connor, In- 
 former, 64-88 ; Constables ]Moroney 
 and Hobbins, 66 ; Williams, from 
 Cork, 66 ; Cornehus Regan, Cork, 66 ; 
 James Walsh, boy informer, 67, 68 ; 
 Jeremiah Buckley, peasant, 68 ; Mike 
 Burke, Informer, 70-72 ; Air. Kelleher 
 of Cork, 72 ; Patrick Molloy, 72-74 ; 
 M'Ardle, police-officer, 75 ; Ann Gal- 
 lagher, 75 ; Slo\-ne, gombeen man, 75 ; 
 David Freely, 76 ; Dillon, peasant, 76 ; 
 Pensioner Fahy, peasant, 76 ; Moloney, 
 76 ; Air. Carter, landlord, jy ; Miss 
 Thompson, landowner, 77, 78 ; JMr. E. 
 M. Richards, landlord, 78, 79 ; Captain 
 Boycott, 80 ; District Inspector Gam- 
 bell, 81 ; Denis Feeley, police sergeant, 
 8r ; Air. E. Smith, Lord Sligo's agent 
 82 ; Hugh Alacauliffe, herd, 82 ; James 
 Buckley, Informer, 83-86; Moroney, 91; 
 
 Hannah Connell, 91 ; Major Tanner, 
 landlord, 94 ; lago. Informer, 95 ; 
 Patrick Delaney, Informer, 97-102 ; 
 Mr. J. Digby, land agent, 102 ; Mr. 
 Hewson, land agent, 102 ; Mr. Young, 
 land agent, 102 ; Mr. Garrett Tyrrell, 
 103 ; Robert Powell, 103; Verriker, 103; 
 Air. John Barrett of Cork, 103 ; Air. 
 Dominick O'Donnell, landlord, 104 ; 
 Captain Plunkett, 104 ; Air. Studdert, 
 agent of Air. Vandeleur, 105 ; Far- 
 ragher. Informer, 106, 107 ; Air, Robert 
 Sandy's, agent, 108 ; Denis Tobin, 
 Informer, 109-111 ; Captain Slacke, 
 III ; Air. Hanley, landlord, 116 ; Con- 
 stable Farrell, 117 ; Alike Roche, 117 ; 
 Sheehy, 118 ; Head-Constable Wilkin- 
 son, 119 ; Inspector Tunbridge of 
 Scotland Yard, 119; Sergeant Sheridan, 
 119 ; Air. W. Jackman, 119 ; Con- 
 stable Couslton, 119 ; Le Caron, or 
 T. AI. Beach, 120-136 ; Air. Alitchell, 
 machine maker, 137 ; Air. Kreagh, 
 sohcitor, Kerry, 138 ; Air. Walsh, 
 solicitor, Dublin, 138 ; Heanne, pea- 
 sant, 138 ; Air. Soames, solicitor for 
 The Times, 139-142 ; Air. J. C. Alac- 
 donald, manager of, 142-145 ; Mr. 
 Houston, 145-150 ; Air. Pigott, 150- 
 161 ; Police - constable Ough, 175 ; 
 Detective Inspector Peel, 175 ; Air. 
 Loftus, Tipperan,^ farmer, 175 ; Ser- 
 geant Caulfield, 176 ; Air. John Webb, 
 176 ; Colman, Informer, 176-179 ; Con- 
 stable Francis Connor, 179 ; Timothy 
 Coffey, 180-184 ; John Leavy, Informer, 
 186 ; Air. George Alulqueeny, ex - 
 Fenian, 187-189. 
 Witnesses for Parnellites — Air. Parnell, 
 214-228 ; Archbishop Walsh of Dublin, 
 228 ; Father Q'Connell, 230 ; Father 
 Considine, 231 ; Stephen Tarpey of 
 Ballyglass, Gahvay, 232 ; Air. Patrick 
 Cawley of Craughwell, 232 ; Dr. 
 AlcCormack, Bishop of Gahvay, 233 ; 
 Father Fahy of Gort, Galway, 233 ; 
 Father Alaloney, Galway, 234 ; Mr. 
 Kennedy, Town Councillor, Loughrea, 
 234; Air. Bartholomew Canavan, re- 
 lieving-officer, 235 ; Air. E. Jennings, 
 secretary of League at Clonbur, 235 ; 
 Air. John Alonaghan, farmer, 236 ; 
 Father Egan of Dunivy, near Loughrea, 
 236-238; Air. Alclnerney, sohcitor, 
 Woodford, 238 ; Air. John Roche, 
 merchant, Woodford, 238-240; Mr. 
 Keary, 239 ; Father White, 241 ; Rev. 
 Alichael O'Donovan of Corrofin, 241 ; 
 Father John Hanneffy of Riverside, 
 Galwa)', 242 ; Patrick Keogh of Kilt- 
 ullagh,'242 ; Father Bodkin of Alullagh, 
 242; Father Finneran of Ballinasloe,243; 
 
Index, 
 
 365 
 
 Mr. William O'Brien, Ballinasloe, 243- 
 252 ; Mr. T. D. Sullivan, ex-Mayor of 
 Dublin, 252-254 ; Father Stewart, 254 ; 
 Mike Killeen, secretary of local 
 branch, 254 : James Clancy, 254 ; IMr. 
 John Ferguson of Glasgow, 254 ; Ivlr. 
 "Mackay, journalist, 255 ; Canon Shink- 
 win of Bantry, 255 ; Father Malley of 
 Drimoleague, 255 ; Rev. Mr. Ander- 
 son, Protestant rector of Drinagh, 
 2^6 ; Father Morissey of Ballinteer, 
 256 ; Canon R3-an of Aghada, 256 ; 
 Father Murphy, Skull, 256 ; Mr. 
 Edward Ray croft, 256 ; Mr, Maurice 
 Healy, 257 ; Mr. Biggar, 257, 258 ; 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor, 258; Mr. E. 
 Harrington, 260 ; Mr. Patrick Kenny 
 of Castleisland, 263 ; Father Godley, 
 263; Mr. D. F. O'Connor, 263; 
 Mr. Lyne of Killarney, 263 ; John 
 Greany, Kerry, 264 ; Father Lawler of 
 Killoughlin, 264 ; Father Daniel Har- 
 rington, 264; Thomas J. O'Connor, 265; 
 iNIr. John Shea, hotel-keeper of Glen- 
 beigh, 265 ; ^Ir. T. P. O'Connor, 265; 
 Father O'Connor of Firies, Kerry, 267 ; 
 Mr. Foley, 268 ; Mr. Henrv O'Connor, 
 268 ; Dr. Kenny, M.P., 268 ; Mr. Sex- 
 ton, M.P., Lord Mayor of DubUn, 270, 
 271 ; ^Ir. T. Harrington, M.P., 271 ; 
 Fa:ther Hewson of BelmuUet, 272 ; 
 Father Kelly of Moygarna, 273 ; Mr. 
 Waldron of Ballyhaunis, 274 ; Charles 
 Burke of Kiltimagh, 274 ; Father 
 McHale, 274 ; Mr. Thomas Harring- 
 ton, 275 ; Dr. Commins, M.P., 275 ; 
 Mr. J. F. Xavier O'Brien, M.P., 275 ; 
 Mr. Sullivan of INIeath, 275 ; Mr. 
 Clancy, Isl. P. , 275 ; Patrick Scanlon of 
 Kerry, 275 ; Martin Fitzpatrick, Mayo, 
 275 { Mr. Power, ^NI.P., 275 ; Mr. 
 Vincent Scully, Tipperary landlord, 
 275 ; Mr. IMichael Davitt, 276-284 ; 
 Mr. J. J. Lowden, barrister, 285 ; Mr. 
 Garrett Byrne, M.P. for Wicklow, 287 ; 
 Mr. Jeremiah Jordan, TvI.P. for West 
 Clare, 287; Mr. T. Mayne, M.P. for 
 Mid-Tipperary, 287 ; Mr. John O'Con- 
 nor, 287-291 ; ^Ir. Daniel Crilly, M.P., 
 of The Nation, 291 ; Mr. Gallagher, 
 Poor Law Guardian of Strahane, 291 ; 
 Mr. O'Hagan, chairman of Commis- 
 
 sioners, 291 ; Mr. Ryan, Mayor of 
 Cork, 291 ; Mr. O'Keefe, Mayor of 
 Limerick ; Mr. Toole, Mayor of Water- 
 ford, 291 ; Mr. Cayle, Alayor of Kil- 
 kenny, 291 ; Mr. Devereux, Mayor of 
 Wexford, 291 ; Mr. ConoUy, Mayor of 
 SHgo, 291 ; Mr. Meehan, chairman 
 Maryborough Commissioners, 291 ; 
 Mr. William Adams, chairman TuUa- 
 more Commissioners, 291 ; Mr. Dela- 
 hunt of Wexford, 291 ; Mr. Foley, 
 M.P., 292 ; Mr. George Shrubsole, 
 292 ; Mr. Flood, chairman of Long- 
 ford Commissioners, 292 ; Mr. John 
 Hammond of the Carlow Town Com- 
 mission, 292 ; Mr. Robinson of Kings- 
 town Commission, 293 ; Mr. Thomas 
 Condon, M.P., East Tipperary, 293 ; 
 Mr. T. Berrane, 293 ; Mr. Kelly, 
 general merchant, 293 ; Mr. McCar- 
 thy, League branch president, 293 ; 
 Mr. Hogg, member of committee of 
 L L. P. U., 294 ; Mr. O' Kelly, 298 ; 
 Mr. Matt. Harris, 299 ; Mrs. Delahunt 
 (Miss Reynolds), 301 ; Dr. Tanner, 
 301 
 Webster, Sir Richard, Attorney-General. 
 — Opening Speech, "i- T ', League 
 speeches followed by outrages that are 
 not denounced by leaders of movement, 
 3 ; Open organization a screen for un- 
 derground movement, 3 ; Messrs. Har- 
 rington and Biggar in Kerry, 4 ; Every 
 possible inquiry into genuineness of 
 letters made by The Tiines, 5 ; Fac- 
 simile letter produced, 5 ; Mr. Parnell 
 could have stopped outrages, 6 ; Patrick 
 Ford, real father of League, 6 ; Irish 
 Americans, paymasters of League, 7 ; 
 Insinuates witness Sullivan has been 
 influenced by Mr. Harrington, 38 ; On 
 part of Tlie Times states he begs to 
 withdraw the question of the genuine- 
 ness of letters, 168 ; Cross-examines 
 Mr. Parnell, 218-226 ; Cross-examines 
 Mr. O'Brien, 246-252 ; Cross-examines 
 Mr. Sexton, 270, 271 ; Cross-examines 
 Father Kelly, 273, 274 ; Cross-ex- 
 amines Mr. Davitt, 278-284 ; Cross- 
 examines Mrs. Delahunt, 301 ; Cross- 
 examines Mr. Parnell about League 
 books, 303 
 
UNWIN BROTHERS, 
 CHILWORTH AND LONDON. 
 
Date Due ^^^if' 
 
 m '^-' 5 '^ 
 
 \«( 
 
 .!AN I 3 1997 
 
 AUG 3 1 2006 
 
 I^H^O-. H^l. 
 
 Bapst Library 
 
 Boston College 
 Chestnut Hill, Mats. 02167 
 
 :ypmsam^ 
 
BOSTON COLLEGE 
 
 aj>^^^^ 
 
 3 9031 01210117 6