< V 
 
 V 
 
 V ' 
 
 THE OPENING SPEECH 
 FOR THE DEFENCE 
 
TliE OPENING SPEECH 
 
 FOR THE DEFENCE 
 
 DELIVERED BY 
 
 SIR CHARLES RUSSELL, Q.C., M.P. 
 
 CAREFULLY REVISED BY THE AUTHOR 
 
 iLontiou 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO. 
 
 AND NEW YORK 
 188 9 
 
DA 
 
 168^ 
 
 -a 
 
 O'NEILL LIBRARY 
 

 PEEFATOKY NOTE 
 
 After the termination of the action of O'Donnell v. 
 AValter in July 1888, the Special Commission Act, 1888 
 (51 & 52 Vict. ch. 35) was passed: — "An Act to con- 
 stitute a Special Commission to inquire into the charges 
 and allegations made against certain members of Par- 
 liament and otlier persons by the defendants in the 
 recent trial of an action entitled O'Donnell v. Walter 
 and another." 
 
 The Eight lion. Sir James Ilannen, Sir J. C. Day, 
 and Sir A. L. Smith were appointed Commissioners 
 under this Act, and after a preliminary meeting on the 
 17th September this Commission held its first sitting on 
 the 22d October 1888. 
 
 The Times was represented by : — The Attorney- 
 General (Sir Ptichard AVebster, Q.C., M.P.) ; Sir Henry 
 James, Q.C., M.P. ; Mr. Murphy, Q.C. ; and Mr. W. 
 Graham ; with Mr. John Atkinson, Q.C, and Mr. Ronan, 
 of the Irish Bar. 
 
 Sir Charles Russell, Q.C, M.P., and Mr. H. H. 
 Asquith, M.P., appeared for Mr. Parnell. 
 
 For other mendjcrs of the Irish party the Counsel 
 were:— Mr. P. T. Reid, Q.C, M.P.; Mr. R Lockwood, 
 
PRE FA TOR V NOTE 
 
 Q.C., M.P.; Mr. Lionel Hart; Mr. Arthur O'Connor, 
 M.P.; and Mr. Arthur Eussell ; with Mr. T. Harring- 
 ton, M.P., of the Irish Bar. 
 
 Mr. Davitt conducted his own case, as did also Mr. 
 Biggar, M.P., and Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P. 
 
 The "Blue Book" referred to in these pages was 
 printed for the purposes of this Commission, and con- 
 . tains all The Times leaders, articles, letters, and reprints, 
 constituting what is known as " Parnellism and Crime," 
 together with the pleadings and proceedings in the 
 action of O'Donnell v. Walter. 
 
 Sir Charles Pussell's speech was concluded on the 
 12th April 1889, and has, in this publication, been re- 
 vised by him from the official shorthand notes. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 1. Opening Observations .... Page 1 
 
 Witnesses — Tlie accused — Tlie accusers — When accusations made 
 — Lord Carnarvon — Tlie accusations — Why have not the 
 Goverunieiit prosecuted — The conduct of The Times case — Dis- 
 advantages of the accused — -A game of surprises — The charge a 
 conspiracy — Roots of the Irish difficulty — Distress in 1879. 
 
 2. Political RETROsrECT .... Page 30 
 
 Grattau's Parliameiit — -jNIovements for emancipation and repeal- 
 Young Ireland, 1 848 — Its literature — Independent opposition — • 
 Tenant League, 1850-52 — The Fenian inoveraent — Remedial 
 measures and agitation — Parnell's work. 
 
 3. Predisposing Causes of Crime . . . Page 40 
 
 Historic testimony — Repression of trade — Lord Dufferin — The 
 Penal Code — Froude — Power of the landlords — Misgovern- 
 ment — Absenteei sm. 
 
 4. History of Agrarian Crime . . . Page 53 
 
 Distress and Crime — " Whitehoys " — -"Levellers" — Sir George 
 Cornewall Lewis's Gav.acs of Irish Disturbance — Lecky — "Steel- 
 bcys " — " Threshers "—Baron Fletcher, 1 8 1 4 — " Ribbonism " 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 — Sir G. C. Lewis's causes of Irish Disturbance ; cluuacter of 
 crime ; classitication of crime ; figures as to crime — The Tithe 
 War, 1830 — Mr. Barry O'Brien — House of Lord's Committee, 
 1839 — House of Commons' Committee, 1852 ; summary of 
 the evidence and their report ; figures as to crime — Crime in 
 1870-71 ; Lord Hartington on the Ribbon Society. 
 
 5. History of Land Legislation . . . Page 94 
 
 Recapituhition — Irish Land system universally condemned — The 
 Act 1870 of no effect — Devon Ct)inmission, 1813, and its 
 report — Attempts to legislate — Ilecommendations of the 
 Commons' Committee, 1852 — Deasy's Act, 1860 — Encum- 
 bered Estates Act, 1849 — The Land Act, 1870. 
 
 6. Distress in 1879 . . . . Page 113 
 
 The Savings Banks — The three interests in the Land — Report of 
 the Local Government Board, April 1880; Gal way; Kerry; 
 Mayo — Evidence of witnesses called by The, Times — Report of 
 the Local Government Board, 1881. 
 
 7. State op Ireland in 1879 . . . Page 135 
 
 Richmond Commission, 1881 — Report of the Irish Commissioners 
 and of their Assistant Commissioners — Report of IMr. Fox to 
 the Mansion-House Committee — General Gordon in The Times 
 — The Potato crop and the general crops, 187G-79 — Clearances 
 — Harvest Labour in England — The Compensation for Dis- 
 turbance Bill ; Mr. Forster in the Commons ; Duke of Argyll 
 in the Lords — Relief of Distress Bill, 1880 — Ejectment notices 
 in 1880. 
 
 8. The Land League : Personal Sketches. . Page 165 
 
 Biggar — Egan — Sexton — Isaac Butt's Home Rule Association- 
 William O'Brien — John Dillon — Michael Davitt — Charles 
 Stewart Parnell ; his work in Parliament. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 9. The Land League : Its Constitution, Objects, and 
 
 Means ..... Page 179 
 
 Established in October 1879 — The committee — Its "Appeal to 
 the Irish race " — Its rules — Its address to the farmers — Its 
 Manifesto to the People of LTlster — Parnell's visit to America, 
 1879-80 — Tlie profrranime of Parliamentary Land Reform — 
 The piildic conference ; Parnell's speech — Boycotting — The 
 Rotunda Meeting, May 1880, and the I. R. B.— The law of 
 conspiracy and The Times case — The work of tlie Land League 
 — The instructions to organisers and officers — Denunciation of 
 crime ; Tlir, Tinier case and The Times evidence— The arrests 
 in 1881 ; Davitt and Dillon arrested; other arrests 
 under Forster's Act of March 1881 — The "No Rent Mani- 
 festo" — Tlie League suppressed — Agrarian crime — Raids and 
 searches. 
 
 10. History of the Land Act, 1881 . . . Page 254 
 
 Previous attempts at legislation — Bessborough Commission, 1881 
 — The defects of the Land Act, 1881 — The test cases. 
 
 11. The Events OF 1882 .... Page 272 
 
 The Ladies' Land League — Miss Reynolds — Parnell in Kilmain- 
 ham ; the Arrears Bill — " The Kilmainham Treaty; " O'Shea's 
 speech in the House of Commons, and his letter to the 
 Freeman's Jnnnial — The Phoenix Park Murders ; the Mani- 
 festo ; Davitt's letter to The Standard; the forged letters 
 — Agrarian crime in 1882 ; the efi'ect on crime of the 
 Arrears Act. 
 
 12. The National League .... Page 296 
 
 Its foundation in Octol^er 1882 — The Programme of the National 
 Conference — Rules of the National League — Its address to the 
 people of Ireland. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 13. The General Election, 1885 . . . Page 305 
 
 English and Irisli Francliisea — The elections in Irehiml ; the 
 majorities and minorities — Uncontested elections — Election 
 petitions. 
 
 14. The Cowper Commission, 1886 . . . Page 314 
 
 The fall in prices, 1885-86 — ^The commissioners — Mr. Knipe's 
 Report — Sir Redvers Buller's evidence. 
 
 15. The Reductions in the Land Court . . Page 322 
 
 Average reductions from 1881-1887 — Cases from the estates 
 of Mr. A. H. Smith Barry ; Mr. G. E. Browne ; 
 Marquis of Londonderry ; Lord Fitzwilliam ; ]\Ir. "William 
 Robb. 
 
 16. Examination of "The Times" Evidence . . Page 328 
 
 ■ " Naming " in speeches — The magistrates and district inspectors 
 — Captain Plunkett — Private information — Captain Slack — 
 The evidence as to the outrages in Mayo, Cork, Galway, 
 Kerry. 
 
 17. " The Times " Evidence (co?iii>merf) . . Page 350 
 
 The evidence as to the murders in Cork, Mayo, Galway, Kerry — 
 The defence of prisoners. 
 
 18. "The Times" Evidence (co?ih'7merf) . . Page 393 
 
 The evidence against nrembers and persons charged. 
 
 19. The Asierican Connection . . . Page 437 
 
 Irish Emigration — Davitt's visit in 1878 — Parnell's visit in 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 1879-80; liis Reception Committee; Address of the citizens 
 of New York ; his Maddison Square speech — Foundation of 
 the American Land League. 
 
 20. The American Connection {continual) : Le Caron and 
 
 THE Conventions .... Page 469 
 
 Tlie New York Convention, May 1880— The Irish World— 1\\q 
 Buffalo Convention, January 1881 — Davitt's arrest, February 
 1881 — Parnell and Le Caron, May 1881, the alleged inter- 
 view — -V. C. circular, April 1880 — Chicago Convention, 
 December 1881 — V". C. circular, November 1881 — V. C. 
 circular, January 1882 — Washington Convention, April 1882 
 — Davitt's letter in March 1883 to John Ferguson on 
 " physical force " — Patrick Ford — Philadelidiia Convention, 
 1883 — V. C. circular, April 1883 — The evidence as to the 
 alleged "Alliance" — Proceedings at the Philadelphia Con- 
 vention, 1883 — Pnston Convention, August 1884 — V. C. 
 circular, August 1884 — V. C. circular, November 1885 
 — Chicago Convention, August 1886 — V. C. circular — 
 The " Policy of Conciliation " — Proceedings at the Chicago 
 Convention, 1886 — The value of Le Caron's evidence. 
 
 21. The Invincible Conspiracy and the Forged Letters Page 516 
 
 The Times evidence ; Dclancy ; his cross-examination ; no cor- 
 rolioration — James Carey — The Forged Letters — Parnell's in- 
 action justified l)y the proceedings in O'Donnell v. Walter — 
 Houston — Pigott — The first batch of letters — Lord Hartington 
 — The rail Mall Gazette — What they cost The Times— The 
 second batch — The third batch — What The Times did not do 
 — Their "compact" — Pigott and Mr. Soames — Tlie conduct 
 of The Times case — Pigott's story in the box about the 
 letters — His correspondence with Mr. W. E. Forster — With 
 ]\Ir. P. Egan — With Archbishop Walsli — Pigott and 
 Trfdh — Pigott's confession — Shannon and Pigott — lilr. 
 Macdouald's opinion about the letters — How they were 
 manufactured. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 22. The Charges and Allegations . . . Page 562 
 
 From " Parnellism and Crime" and the Attorney-CJeneral's 
 opening in O'Donnell v, Walter — The charges and tlie evidence 
 
 contrasted. 
 
 23, Concluding Observations . . . Page 596 
 
 The two " parties " in Ireland — What the Nationalist party- 
 has done. 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 My Lords, the sittings of this Commission — this unique 
 Commission — have, up to to-day, reached the number of 
 G3. There have been called before your Lordships in the 
 course of this inquiry some 340 odd witnesses. There Witnesses, 
 have been called, amongst others, 16 District Inspectors 
 of the Eoyal Irish Constabulary Force; 98 members of 
 a subordinate kind belonging to that force ; a number 
 of landlords and agents; 18 informers, including some 
 convicts ; one Irish priest, one only of the class in the 
 Irish community best acquainted with the circumstances 
 and the feelings of that community, and best able to 
 inform your Lordships as to their circumstances and as 
 to their condition. There have been also called five 
 expert witnesses — experts on the question of hand- 
 Avriting. Captain O'Shea, the informer Delaney, and 
 I am afraid I must add Mr. Soames and Mr. Mac- 
 Donald ; and the fifth, Mr. Inglis, called and sworn, 
 Init fortunately for Mr. Inglis's reputation, not ex- 
 amined. 
 
 My Lords, from these witnesses has proceeded a 
 very large body of evidence, a great part of which 
 
 I' 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 I shall have to submit to your Lordships, after argu- 
 ment, and I hope demonstration, is wholly irrelevant to 
 any real question in this case. For this is not an 
 inquiry into the existence of crime, for that is known 
 unhappily to exist in every community in a greater or 
 less degree, and as to agrarian crime in a greater degree 
 in communities like Ireland, cursed with a vicious land 
 system. 
 
 My Lords, I cannot but feel in now rising to address 
 your Lordships, that the utter, absolute collapse of the 
 forged letters has taken out of this inquiry its pith and 
 its marrow. It would be idle to affect that your Lord- 
 ships do not know, what all the world knows, tliat 
 without those letters there would have been no such 
 Commission as your Lordships are now sitting upon, 
 and that those letters are the only foundations on 
 which rest the most reckless and the most calumni- 
 atory of the remaining charges and allegations. 
 Those letters run through the story of the libels 
 in Hie Times, playing the part of the warp in the 
 weaving of these webs, of calumny. Even if your 
 Lordships had the power — I presume you have not 
 — even if your Lordships desired, I presume your 
 Lordships could not avoid discharging the duty 
 which the statute casts upon you, of inquiring into the 
 remaining charges and allegations apart from those 
 letters, and it is to that part of the case, at the outset 
 of my observations, I propose principally to address 
 your Lordships. 
 The Ac- My Lords, I would ask, who are the accused before 
 
 your Lordships ? I will tell you. Ireland returns to 
 the Imperial Parliament 102 representatives. Ireland 
 returns those representatives upon the principles on 
 which the Constitution oives the rloht to return them. 
 
 cubed. 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 She selects lier representatives to interpret her wants 
 and her wishes, to please no section of men, and no 
 portion of tliis commnnity, but to represent her. My 
 Lords, of those 102 members, two are returned by the 
 distinguished University of Dublin, Trinity College. 
 Trinity College has been, if I may be permitted to 
 itialvc the observation in })assing, always remarkable for 
 return ing men of considerable distinction, and it is now 
 represented by two gentlemen of distinction ; but it has 
 commonly played the part of a port of refuge or a port 
 of call for distinguished Irish lawyers, of one side of 
 politics, on their way to the more peaceful haven of the 
 woolsack or tlic judicial bench. Of the remaining 100 
 representatives returned for Ireland, 85 stand before your 
 Lordships' bar, for although, upon a principle of selec- 
 tion tlmt I do not understand, and do not think worth 
 while to try and understand, only G5 have been named 
 in these proceedings before your Lordships, the whole 
 85 stand firm and solid on the same public platform. 
 Some may have been more or less active, some may 
 liave been, if you please, more or less indiscreet, or 
 more or less discreet, but they are solid on the general 
 principles upon which they have acted, and their 
 conduct in respect of which is, in part, impugned before 
 your Lordships. 
 
 My Lords, there is no county in Ireland from which 
 there is not one or other of the parties for whom I 
 appear sitting as a reju'csentative. In tln-ee provinces of 
 Ireland they have the entire representation in their 
 hands, and even for the province of Ulster, which some 
 people are disposed to speak of as if it were not part of 
 Ireland, l)ut were something like a suburb of Glasgow, 
 til ere is a majority of the Irisli parliamentary party 
 sitting. j\Iy Lords, why do 1 dwell upon this ? To 
 
OPENING OBSER VA TIONS 
 
 point out to your Tjordsbips that tlierc ih, as far as I 
 know, no parallel in history, no parallel certainly in tlie 
 division of political parties in this country, which pre- 
 sents so complete a picture of preponderating force of 
 representative opinion, represented according to the 
 forms of the Constitution, as is shown in the representa- 
 tion of Ireland to-day. But I have another purpose in 
 mentioning this. I want to try and raise this issue out 
 of that nnmethodical heterogeneous mass of detail with 
 which it is at present covered. I want to point out to 
 your Lordships that in truth the attempt is here being- 
 made, in which your Lordships are asked to assist, 
 to do what Edmund Burke declared had never been 
 iiKiictment succcssfully douc, to draw an indictment against a whole 
 
 of a Nation. 
 
 nation. 
 
 I say this for the purpose, not merely of stating what 
 Burke says, but of pointing the meaning of what he 
 says. What does he mean by saying that you cannot 
 indict a nation ? He means that when a movement 
 becomes a movement of a whole people, that when there 
 is a great national upheaval, the ordinary notions and 
 rules of judicature borrowed from the Old Bailey and 
 from Nisi Frius have no relation to such questions ; 
 that you are dealing in a higher region and with a 
 broader issue than any in which the mere ordinary rules 
 of judicature will help you. 
 Trying a My Lords, for ten years, from 1879 to 1889, it is no 
 
 " exaggeration, it is the literal truth, to say that there has 
 been going on in Ireland a great revolution — social 
 partly, political partly. It is the truth to say, even 
 so early I venture to put it, that your Lordships are 
 here to-day trying that revolution under the Queen's 
 Commission, while there are across the Channel, in 
 Ireland, numbers of the Queen's Courts, at least as 
 
OPENING OBSER VA TJONS 
 
 regularly constituted as this, gathering for the Irish 
 ]ieople the fruits of that very revolution. 
 
 I have pointed out who the accused here are. Who The 
 
 AcCUSGl'S 
 
 are the accusers 1 The accusers are a company or a 
 co-partnership, or a syndicate, 1 know not which, called 
 by the public in ordinary parlance Tlic Times; who, if 
 they have been consistent in nothing else, have been 
 consistent in their unrelenting, unvarying hostility to 
 the Irish people, and the cause of the Irish people. 
 
 It is now a good many years ngo, but the incident 
 is an instructive one, when The Times, during the Lord 
 Lieutenancy of Lord JMulgrave, put into its columns 
 these words : — 
 
 " It lias been proved beyond a douljt that Lord Mulgrave has 
 actually invited to dinner that rancorous and foul-mouthed ruffian 
 O'Connell." 
 
 We have here in these words the keynote to the mis- 
 government of L'eland. It is the fashion nowadays to 
 praise O'Connell, and a distinguished Minister of the 
 day, indeed the principal Irish Minister, has gone the 
 h^ngtli of claiming O'Connell as a supporter of his policy ! 
 But what did the writer mean when he made that com- 
 ])laint against Lord Mulgrave? Lord Mulgrave was 
 the Queen's Lord Jjieutenant in Ireland, charged with 
 the duty of the government of that country, bound — if 
 indeed it be true that Governments exist for the good 
 of the people and not for the benefit of the governors — 
 to consult, by the best and every means in his power, the 
 interests, and to regard the wishes, of the people over 
 whom he ruled, and yet it is made in the columns of 
 this paper a charge and indictment against him that he 
 has sought companionship with, has sought counsel 
 with, has sought to get some touch-point, and means of 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 contact with popular opinion and feeling in Ireland. It 
 is the want to which I shall have again and again to refer 
 in the course of this case : it is this absence of contact 
 with the people, with the representatives of the people, 
 absence of the means of knowledge of their wants and 
 of their wishes, that has been one of the grievous dis- 
 asters in Ireland's government in the past, ay, and in 
 the present day. 
 
 My Lords, the same paper later, again and again 
 vilified the Irish priesthood — as devoted a body of 
 clergy as probably the world has ever seen — as a band 
 of " surpliced ruffians." The same paper, later in 1846, 
 ao-ain and ao-ain exulted in that cruel decimation which 
 
 o o 
 
 an artificial famine had Ijrought on the Irish people, and 
 exultingly exclaimed that "at last the Irish were gone, 
 and gone with a vengeance." Unhappily for tlie peace 
 of the country they were " gone with a vengeance," the 
 fruits of which to-day we are to some extent reaping. 
 
 The same paper in 1848 expressed the hope tliat 
 the Young Ireland rising would be such as would enable 
 the Queen's troops with the Queen's artillery to mow 
 down the Queen's subjects in Ireland wholesale. Lastly, 
 and in comparatively recent days, speaking of the emi- 
 gration from Ireland draining the manhood of the 
 country, and leaving behind in undue proportions the 
 old and the feeble, it likened that stream of emioration 
 across the Atlantic to the passage of rats from an 
 empty ship in dock to a laden and freighted ship — the 
 passage from one to the other by the hawser which 
 joined them together. 
 
 My Lords, I know not which has been the worst 
 factor in the misgovernment of Ireland — the influence 
 of The Times, which undoubtedly once was great, or the 
 influence of a section of the Legislature to whose action 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 I shall have hereafter to refer your Lordships. It is 
 true to say of The Times that to the misuse of its influ- 
 ence in times gone by, and in recent days, has been 
 attributable— fairly attributable — much of that estrange- 
 ment of feeling, much of that soreness of mind on the 
 part of the Irish people in relation to England, which, 
 unhappily, to a great extent exists. I admit that there 
 linve lK!en gleams, transient gleams, of intelligence and 
 statesmanship in The Times, but I say they have 
 been far more than counterbalanced by its persistent 
 and consistent tone, now of insolent abuse, now of still 
 more insolent condescension. 
 
 That this is a matter which is recognised by men 
 not otherwise friendly to the Irish people I would like 
 to justify by a reference to the writings of one of the 
 contributors to the lil)els in cjuestion — I mean Mr. 
 Bagenal, who uses this language. Speaking of Ireland 
 he says :— 
 
 " Its trctatment hy the English jn'css was indignantly resented 
 l)y the emigrant Irish themselves, and by their countrymen in 
 America, and read l>y the light of modern events, there can be 
 little doubt that the tone of such journals as The Times and Sahir- 
 d(uj Review in their treatment of Irish subjects was well calculated 
 to excite the indignation of the principal actors in the heartrending 
 exodus of those days. For the leader-writer of a j)aper to look at 
 the 'longagou}'^ of Ireland's misfortunes' as a naturalist would on 
 an operation of nature, was entirely philosophic, and for a Govern- 
 ment to expedite that operation Avas no doubt a pleasing task. But 
 we can hardly 1>e surprised that, after the sufferings of the people 
 under the teacliingsof John Mitchel and his folloAvers, the emigrant 
 Irish should look upon their own dispersion as anything but a philoso- 
 phical or pleasing matter. Nay, that they should carry with them 
 seeds of enmity against the country whose })ress treated them, as they 
 thought, so scornfully and cruelly in their trouble and exile, is but 
 natural, and that they should transmit that enmity to their offspring 
 is almost a matter of necessity." 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 ■ My Lords, I have dwelt upon this perhaps hunger 
 than may have seemed to be necessary, hut I cannot 
 shut my eyes to the fact that the columns of Tlid Times 
 supply the daily mental pabulum which feeds a large 
 proportion of the governing classes of this country. T 
 cannot but feel that amongst these classes your TiOrd- 
 ships may be included, and I do desire at the outset, if 
 it will help to the understanding of this case, that your 
 Lordships should know how Tlie Times is in truth re- 
 garded — what has been its teaching in the past. But 
 in this reference I have one consolation. It is the recol- 
 lection of the ftict that it has been the fate of Tlie Times 
 to help forward to success every cause it has opposed. 
 Nor are these my words. They are the words of one of 
 the greatest statesmen of our time, now dead, I mean 
 Eichard Cobden, who says : — 
 
 " By its truculent — I had almost said ruffianly — attack on every 
 movement while in the weakness of infancy, it has aroused to in- 
 creased elibrts the energies of those it has assailed ; Avhile, at the 
 same time, it has awakened the attention of a languid public, and 
 attracted the sympathy of fair and manly minds. It is thus that 
 such public measures as the abolition of the corn laws, the repeal 
 of the taxes on knowledge, the negotiation of the treaty of com- 
 merce with France, triumphed in spite of these virulent, pernicious, 
 and unscrupulous attacks, until at last I am tending to the convic- 
 tion that there are three conditions only requisite for the success of 
 any great project of reform — namely, a good cause, persevering 
 advocates, and the hostility of 'The Times." 
 
 This is the accuser. 
 When Ac- Wlicn wcrc the accusations made, and under what 
 maae!°"^ circumstauccs ? Let me remind your Lordships that, 
 always excepting the letters which first saw the light in 
 1887, there is nothing which has been proved before 
 you, except of course the proof of later crime, that was 
 not known, that was not canvassed, that was not dis- 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 cussed in the columns of the papers and in the House 
 of Commons previous to and in 1883. The election of 
 1885 came, and at that election of 1885 — your Lord- 
 ships ni'c not politicians, and therefore I may be forgiven 
 for reminding you — induced, by what promises, real or 
 siip})0sed, I stop not to inquire — the Irish party were 
 helping one great political party in the State, I mean 
 the Tory party. That party sought their help, were 
 grateful for their help, stood upon the same platforms 
 with them, and the Irish members were thanked by 
 them for their efforts. Was it supposed then that 
 these men, whose hands they tool^, beside whom they 
 stood on platforms throughout the country, were the 
 direct accomplices in crime, as is now suggested ? 
 
 Well, my Lords, that election passed. A dis- i^ord 
 
 •111-1 'ii IT Ml 1 -11 '^'■''^rnarvon. 
 
 tmguislied, iiigh-mmded, and I will say broad-mnided, 
 sympathetic statesman went in the character of the 
 (v.HTeen's Lieutenant to Ireland — I mean Lord Carnarvon. 
 There had long been present to thoughtful minds, what 
 must have more than once come up in your Lordships' 
 minds, the belief that there must be something indeed 
 "rotten in the state of Denmark" — that there must 
 1)6 something indeed grievously, radically WTong in 
 tlie state of Ireland, which presents the great mass 
 of the people — with regret be it said — not in sym- 
 pathy with the law or government or administration, 
 that mass of the people representing the real con- 
 trolling political ])ower in tlie land. It must have 
 long struck thoughtful minds that surely it was at 
 last time for trying the experiment whether the mass 
 could not be won upon the side of the law, made a 
 party in sympathy with — in support of the law, by 
 brinmne^ that law and the s^overnmcnt more in con- 
 soiiance with their feelings, and by trying that ex- 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 periment wliicli history tells has never foiled — the 
 experiment of putting upon the people and upon 
 their leaders the responsibility for their own govern- 
 ment. 
 Two It is no exaggeration to say that in Ireland there 
 
 Mrs.''' stood and stand two powers ; one the power of the 
 Queen, constitutional, lawful, backed up by all the 
 resources of the Crown, and its great Imperial execu- 
 tive, and yet comparatively a weak power, because 
 it has not behind it, holding and sustaining it, that moral 
 sanction, that moral support, which spring from a sense 
 of benefits received, assent given, and protection aftbrded, 
 and without which, in these days of free discussion and 
 free thought, no government can in the face of the 
 civilised world long and permanently endure : the other 
 power, extraordinary and unconstitutional, exercised by 
 men who have comparatively little responsibilit)', be- 
 cause the law and constitution have not put it upon 
 them — moral responsibility I admit they have — legal 
 and constitutional responsibility is what I am speaking 
 of, yet it is the power, the real power in the land, 
 because there o-oes out to it the willino- feelino- sane- 
 tion and assent of the mass of the people. 
 
 Lord Carnarvon thouoht that the time had come 
 when he should do what Lord Mulgrave was repre- 
 hended by Tlie Times for doing in the case of O'Connell. 
 I am not ooino- to suofo-est that Lord Carnarvon was 
 committed to any definite views upon any political 
 question. That is foreign to my purpose, and I am not 
 discussing that in the least, but it is clear that with the 
 knowledge, and knowledge means assent, of the Prime 
 ]\[inister, Lord Carnarvon, in the autumn of 1885, sought 
 counsel with Mr. Justin j\LCarthy and Mr. Charles 
 Stewart Parnell with reference to the future oovern- 
 
OPEXLYG OBSERVATIO.XS 
 
 ment of Ireland. AgaiD, I wish not to be misunderstood. 
 I am not suggesting, nor is it material to my purpose 
 to suo^gest, whether Lord Carnarron had in his own 
 mind "any definite scheme in view; it is enough for me 
 to say that he did it. and I honour him for it. He 
 thouglit it right that, representing the Queen's authority 
 in Ireland, he should put himself in communication with 
 the popular leaders of opinion in Ireland with a view to 
 bringing into greater harmony, with the feelings of the 
 people goyerned, the law, and the administration of the 
 law in that country. Did he belieye. did Lord Salis- 
 bury belieye, that ]\Ir. Parnell and Mr. Justin McCarthy, 
 and their followers, were red-handed from the com- 
 mission of systematic crime, or were in direct com- 
 plicity with the perpetration of systematic crime ? Xo. 
 my Lords, they did not ! It is after that event that 
 these calumnies are published. Something else had 
 happened. The change of Government had happened, 
 and that new Government jn-oceeded very much upon 
 the indications, so far as they were indications, of the 
 views which Lord Carnarvon had in that matter. The 
 great policy, as it was regarded by a considerable — I 
 will say no more — by a large and important section of 
 the British community, the great Policy of Eeconciliation 
 with Ireland was proposed. That Policy of Eeconcilia- 
 tion was gratefully, gladly accepted by the Irish people, 
 and it wrought in the tone and temper of that people 
 a change so marvellous that 1 think it ought to teach 
 the future rulers of Ireland that, while Ireland's contest 
 for the rights of self-government camiot and will not be 
 abandoned and surrendered, that it cannot be put down 
 by force — yet that the Irish people have feelings and 
 characteristics peculiarily accessible, and that they are 
 peculiarly grateful when they see the attempt made, and 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 honestly made, to meet their views and their constitu- 
 tionally expressed wishes. But that policy was rejected. 
 The country was not ripe for it. Ireland, of course, pro- 
 nounced for it ; Scotland pronounced for it ; Wales 
 pronounced for it ; England did not. An amount of 
 prejudice, ignorance, want of information, prejudice of 
 race, prejudice of religion, still hung round the cpiestion 
 to some extent, I am glad to think to a lessening extent, 
 but still hung round the question. 
 
 My Lords, I have mentioned who the accused 
 
 are. I have mentioned who the accusers are. 1 have 
 
 mentioned when the accusations were made. 
 
 TiieAccu- What are the accusations? At this stn^-e I am not 
 
 "'' '°"^' going to deal with them in detail ; that I will do at a 
 
 later time, and when I do I shall take them, not with 
 
 ■ the milder gloss which occasionally the language of the 
 
 Attorney-General has sought to put upon them, but I 
 
 shall take tliem from their original source, as they 
 
 originally appeared, as they were intended to be under- 
 
 ; stood, as they were understood. For my present pur- 
 
 ^ poses, my Lords, it is enough to say that the accusations 
 
 may be broadly stated thus : That the movement in 
 
 Ireland was carried on by its leaders by means of an 
 
 organised and paid system of murder and outrage, which 
 
 such leaders carefully calculated upon and coolly applied ; 
 
 that they aided, with money and otherwise, tlie flight of 
 
 criminals from justice ; and tliat the public denunciations 
 
 of crime, including the Phoenix Park murders, which were 
 
 uttered by them, were lying, false, and hypocritical. 
 
 Need I point out, if I have rightly stated those 
 charges, that those are charges of the gravest criminal 
 significance ? This is no charge of moral responsibility 
 for crime, incidental to a great public and national 
 movement and organisation. It is a deliberate charge 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 13 
 
 of systematically, coolly calculating and deliberately 
 npplying a system of murder and of outrage, and I 
 have to ask the question : — If, as I cannot doubt, 1 
 have rightly stated the case, why did not tlie Govern- 
 ment prosecute ? Why are we here before your Lord- 
 ships' Court instead of standing in the dock at the 
 Old Bailey, if a dock large enough could be obtained ? 
 and wliy were we not standing years ago in that 
 position ? My Lords, I am not uttering in this case 
 one word of a party speech. Politics I must refer to. 
 "Party" I shall not in any "party" sense refer to. 
 I am not here to attack one Government or another, 
 one party or another. The Government of the party 
 which is not now in power did prosecute a certain section 
 of the Irish leaders. In 1879 Mr. Davitt was prose- 
 cuted. In 1880-81 Mr. Parnell and many of his col- 
 leagues were also prosecuted. Up to that time, and 
 for the purposes of that latter trial, the charge was, 
 as well as I recollect it — I will he, glad to be put 
 right if I am wrong — the charge of conspiring to 
 induce or to prevail upon or to intimidate — I am not 
 sure what form it took — certain classes in Ireland, 
 meaning the tenant farmers, not to satisfy their legal 
 obligations. That was the substance, I think, of the 
 charge, and ]\lr. Healy, wdio is one of the accused 
 before you, humorously remarked the other day when 
 some of the speeches were being read, that he had 
 already been tried upon some of those charges, and he 
 wanted to know whether before your Lordships the 
 plea of autrefois acquit might not ])e put in ; but it is 
 the fact that up to that date, namely, the end of 1880, 
 a numl)cr of the speeches which have here l^een relied 
 upon as evidence of the criminality of these defendants 
 were made the subject of the trial, which resulted in 
 
14 OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 the disagreement of the jury, the exact figures of which 
 I do not trouljle your Lordships with, Ijecause of course 
 they are not always to be relied on. That the Liberal 
 Government did ; and neither the Liberal Government 
 in former days nor the Tory Government has shown the 
 slightest indisposition to prosecute the Lish members 
 when in their judgment there was sufficient reason 
 or cause. We have had in recent days a number of 
 prosecutions of publicans for refusing drink to the 
 police, of carmen refusing cars to the police, of news- 
 vendors for selling newspapers of an alleged objectionable 
 kind, of newspaper owners, of foremen printers of news- 
 papers, and I think prosecutions against no less than 
 Why have 24 members of Parliament. Therefore a Govern- 
 iroleln- mcnt of neither party has shown any indisposition 
 inentpro- ^^ prosecutc where they believed there were grounds 
 for prosecution. The opinion, I need not add, of the 
 Lish members, and of certainly a very j'l'eponderating 
 portion of the Lish people, is, that that disposition to 
 prosecute has been shown where there were no sufHcient 
 grounds for it. Why, then, did neitlier Government 
 take this course, and why is it that we are here ? Why 
 is it that this case is being conducted at the instance 
 of what I may call for this purpose a private prosecutor '{ 
 My Lords, the only answer tliat can be given, and 1 
 submit it is the proper answer, is because the ad- 
 visers of the Government — -those who knew the wdiole 
 state of the case — did not believe, however they may 
 have in their minds condemned the conduct, charac- 
 terised the indiscretion, it may be, of L'ish members, 
 they did not believe there was any just, real, tan- 
 gible ground for making criminal charges against those 
 members. 
 
 ISIow, my Lords, I have put those questions, and so 
 
OPENING OnSER VA TIONS 
 
 for answered them. There are one or two others I must 
 still put and proceed to answer. 
 
 How has this case been conducted before your Lord- conduct of 
 ships? I say, while in form it is not a Government * '® ^'^^^' 
 prosecution, it has in fact been conducted in a way 
 which has given to the prosecutors all the advantages 
 of a Covernment prosecution, and given to the accused 
 none of tlie advantages to which they would have been 
 entitled had it been in form a Government prosecu- 
 tion, I wish not to be misunderstood. I am not can- 
 vassing or discussing the rpiestion whether it is not 
 perfectly riglit that the Government should give all the 
 assistance tliey can to the prosecution. For my present 
 argument I am most willing to assume, and do assume, 
 tJiat they would be perfectly right and justified ; but 
 wlmt 1 am desiring to point out to your ijordshi])s is 
 the way in'wJiicli that has worked. Wh;it has been 
 the state of things ? Why, my Lords, Lincoln's Lm 
 Fields has at times presented much the appearance of 
 a camping ground for that military force known as the 
 Koyal Irish Constabulary, collecting to form the i:>osse 
 comitatiis; of a sheriff on his way to a great eviction 
 scene, ]\L'. Soames's olhce, we liave heard in the course 
 of the case, has been constituted a kind of pel ice registry 
 for the Royal Lisli Constabulary Police in London. 
 AVe have had, " thick as leaves in Vallambrosa," district 
 inspectors and magistrates crowding even the very 
 benches where the Counsel of the Queen sit, aiding, 
 iielping, and suggesting the conduct of this case. We 
 have had magistrates assistino; and takino- evidence, 
 and policemen seeing witnesses personally — personally 
 conducting them, buying their tickets, paying theii- 
 conduct-money. AVe have seen secret documents pro- 
 duced, of wliicli more will have to be said hereafter, and 
 
1 6 OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 placed* at the disposition of the prosecutors. AVe have 
 secret spies enlisted in their service, and we have had 
 the gaols of the country, the gaols of the kingdom, 
 scoured to see, whether from the refuse, there might 
 not be produced witnesses who will do some little bit of 
 dirty work in trving to defame and to blacken the 
 character of the Irish Parliamentary Party. This is a 
 serious thing, more serious than I thought it to be 
 when, as I have only recently learned, this was done, 
 not merely by the Walkers, and the Thompsons, 
 and the Shannons, but done by police officers in con- 
 siderably high authority, and done even by that wretched 
 man to whose name I must hereafter refer — I mean 
 Pio-ott — ^all these people going to these gaols in the 
 character of friends of the convicts, and going as though 
 to pay friendly visits which the rules of the prison 
 enabled to be paid, to break the dreary monotony of 
 their convict life 1 ]\Iy Lords, this suggests serious 
 reflection. A man sentenced to twenty years' penal 
 servitude, character lost, separated from wife and child- 
 ren and kinsfolk, is visited, is told that he may have 
 the opportunity of coming and giving evidence, is 
 asked whether he knows anything to incriminate Mr. 
 Parnell or Mr. Parnell's colleagues ; for I suppose the 
 visitor would hardly be a more careful emissary than 
 Mr. Houston was when he gave that famous commission 
 to Richard Pigott, to see whether he could or could not 
 obtain documents incriminating Mr. Parnell and others. 
 And, my Lords, without any vulgar temptation, with- 
 out even suggestion of possible benefit, eager hope in 
 the wretched convict's mind would conjure up a picture, 
 and he would believe that if he could give evidence, 
 valued by those who approached him, the prison doors 
 might earlier be opened for him, and the liaht of God's 
 
I OPENING OBSERVATIONS ly 
 
 heaven shine upon him, and he might see once more 
 his friends, liis kinsfolk, his children, from w]iom he was 
 so separated. My Lords, with those temptations, tried 
 as one cannot douljt with the facts we know, acraiu and 
 again, it is a marvel not that the man Delaney has come 
 and said wliat he did, but that he has not been able to 
 say more, and that none others have been found of the 
 scourings of the gaols to come and add their story to this 
 tale of infamy and calumny. I say, then, that this case 
 has been conducted with all the advantasjes to the accusers 
 as if it liad been in form a Government prosecution. 
 
 I say, on the other hand, it has been conducted with- DL^advan- 
 out any of the advantages to the accused which would ^^f^^u^ed 
 have been acquired had it been in form a Government 
 prosecution. My Lords, if this were a Government 
 2)rosecution there would have been a preliminary in- 
 quiry ; at that preliminary inquiry the accused would 
 have lieard the evidence against them. They would 
 have had the rio;ht of cross-examination : they would 
 liave had an interval between the magisterial inquiry 
 and tlie actual trial in the ultimate criminal court, of 
 considering theii" position, of inquiring into the antece- 
 dents of the witnesses called against them, and if it had 
 been, as frequently happens, that between the magisterial 
 inquiry and the actual trial fresh evidence had been 
 forthcoming, it would have been the duty of the prose- 
 cutors, according to the known and humane practice 
 observed in these proceedings, to have furnished to the 
 accused and to their advisers copies of any fresh evidence 
 proposed to be tendered against them. What has been 
 the case here ? I state in the presence of my learned 
 friends — the Attorney-General is not here, my Lord — 
 l)ut I say it has been a game of surprises. I say de- 
 liberately again, a "game of surprises" ; and I will ask 
 
 c 
 
iS OP£\/Xu OBSERVATIONS i 
 
 A Game of your Lordsliips to jnclge ill a moment wlietlier the 
 burpribea. ^.^^^^^g upoii wliicli tliis coiirsc of actioii is justified are 
 sufficient or not. I say that they have, so far from giving 
 us any particuhirs that were of any real assistance, given 
 us none; that they have abstained from giving us, in 
 answer to repeated inquiries and demands, notice of 
 witnesses or even the subject on which the witnesses 
 were to be called. I will do my learned friend who is 
 sitting near me (Sir Henry James) the justice to say that 
 he has more than once tried to give me such assistance, 
 but he has only been able to give it to me to a very im- 
 perfect degree ; and I submit to your Lordsliips broadly, 
 with the full assent of my learned friends, that as 
 regards the most important witnesses called before you, 
 until thev were called into the box we had no notice of 
 them, and had no knowledge of their antecedents. As 
 regards many persons coming from Ireland, frec|uently 
 we had some information, because it was known — it was 
 talked about in the neighbourhood — that they had been 
 subpoenaed and brought here by the police, and so the 
 fact of their cominsf became known to us. All we knew 
 was that they had been subpoenaed, but not when they 
 were coming, much less what they were coming about. 
 We had no information. 
 
 I will give your Lordships one illustration of this, 
 the case of a man called Walsh, from Kiltimagh, jMayo 
 — a boy he was. The Attorney-General was instructed 
 to get up and state that he was obliged to call this wit- 
 ness out of his turn, because there were urgent reasons 
 why he should be examined, and why he should go back 
 to Ireland. That boy AValsh was called. i\Ty Lords, 
 Mr. Lockwood, when he was in the box, said : " I think 
 I have got a letter about this man." He went for the 
 letter, and it was handed to me when I was in the act of 
 
I OPENING OBSERVATIONS 19 
 
 cross-examining him ; and upon that lad's confession it 
 appeared that he had been guilty of at least three acts of 
 fraud and of dishonesty, and certainly with the assist- 
 ance of that letter I think we were able to show to you 
 that he was not a witness upon whose unsupported testi- 
 mony you would place much reliance. Why was that 
 witness launched at that stage of the day ? I await the 
 explanation, and I hope the explanation will be forth- 
 coming. He was the witness, you will recollect, who had 
 the interview with Mr. Allan, the District Inspector, and 
 to whom, if the witness's account is reliable — I am sure 
 I do not know whether it is or not, and I do not want to 
 be unjust to Mr. Allan or anybody else ; — but according to 
 the witness AValsh, this policeman, before Walsh was told 
 he would be required to give evidence here, delicately in- 
 sinuated to him that he Avas liable to be prosecuted for 
 one of those very acts of fraud or dishonesty which he 
 had committed. My Lords, it has been the same throucrh 
 the piece. The man Delaney, the man Beach, or Le 
 Caron, whom I regard — I may, of course, l:»e wrong in 
 taking that view of the case, but whose evidence I con- 
 sider the most valuable that has been given in this case 
 in the interests of Mr. Parnell, was examined here, but 
 we never before heard his name ; we knew nothing 
 about him. 1 micrlit 50 through the whole catalogrue of 
 witnesses and tell you the same. It has therefore been 
 a game of surprises in which, deliberately, for reasons I 
 presume they thought adequate, my learned friends 
 have kept us in the dark as to tlie substance of their 
 evidence, and the witnesses who were to depose to it. 
 What was the reason given ? I understand no reason 
 to be given or suggested, except two — two very grave 
 reasons if weU founded. One was the dread, as I under- 
 stand it, of the witnesses being tampered with. So far 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 as I recolloft, lliere have been in tlio wliole coiu\sc of the 
 case only two suggestions bearing upon that point. One 
 was the suggestion that one witness was taken by an 
 Irish friend of his, who apparently sympathised with ]\Ir. 
 Parnell and Mr. Parnell's colleagues, to the office of ]Mr. 
 George Lewis. The other was the suggestion which the 
 Attorney-General made (I am sorry he is not able to be 
 here), for which he has not yet made the apology which 
 he must in some form or other make before this case 
 ends — I mean the imputation which he made upon my 
 learned friend j\Ir. Harrington, and upon ]\lr. Harring- 
 ton's brother, although they indignantly denied it before 
 your Lordships' Court, that they had at the adjourn- 
 ment sought to tamper with one witness. The other 
 suo-o-estion was that the communication of the names of 
 these witnesses might expose them to danger. That, of 
 course, is a subject which naturally affects one's mind ; 
 but there has not been through the whole of this case, 
 so far as I am aware, a suggestion that there was any 
 appearance of danger, or any attempt in any shape or 
 form, with these two exceptions I have mentioned to 
 your Lordships, in any way to interfere with any of these 
 witnesses. But even these reasons would not have ap- 
 plied to a very large mass of their witnesses — land agents, 
 landlords, their policemen, their police agents, the dis- 
 trict inspectors, and the magistrates. I say all this 
 because I have found the greatest difficulty in this 
 muddle of evidence in putting it into some shape or 
 methodical form. 
 
 Further, I say that this case has been pressed perti- 
 naciously, rancorously, not as if this were a criminal case, 
 but as if it were a struggle, over the flimsiest issue at 
 Xisi Frius, who should get the verdict. There has been 
 no sense of o-enerosity to a number of men. colleao-ues in 
 
OPENING OBSER VA TIONS 
 
 Parliament of two of my learned friends ; and, my 
 [iords, this although, forsooth, the constitution of this 
 Commission was supposed to have ])een graciously con- 
 ceded l)y a gracious Government to enable Mr. Parnell 
 and his colleagues to have an opportunity of freeing 
 themselves from grave imputations ! this, my Lords, 
 although, forsooth, the position taken m^ at the begin- 
 ning, the initial stage of this inquiry, by my learned 
 friend Mr. Graham, and persevered in with greater or 
 less fervour by the Attorney - General, was that The 
 Times were here, not in truth in the character of prose- 
 '•utors, seeking by hook or by crook to stamp indelibly 
 the character of criminal infamy upon the defendants, 
 Ijut that they were liere as impartial friends, to enable 
 your Lordships to arrive at the truth and justice of the 
 case ! 
 
 My Lords, this is in its essence and in it,=l nature a 
 criminal case. I cannot but recall an incident which 
 happened during the time wlien my learned friend near 
 me was Attorney-General. A clergyman from the North 
 of Ireland, a Presbyterian minister, during the trial of 
 some dynamitards was in London, and was anxious to 
 see the trial then proceeding at the Old Bailey. He 
 went and heard it. He is a well-known person in the 
 North of Ireland — Professor Dougherty. AYlien he re- 
 turned he said he never was more amazed in his life. 
 He said if criminal trials in Ireland were only conducted 
 as that criminal trial was conducted, then indeed the 
 law would Ije respected as a different thing ; and he 
 gave to my learned friend that praise which he so fully 
 deserves, but which, of course, was merely for conduct 
 which we all knew he would pursue, of extreme fairness 
 towards the prisoners and extreme desire that nothing 
 should come out that was not strictly relevant to the 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 issue and strictly evidence in the case. . But I say all 
 that has been forgotten and reversed in this case, and 
 we have been (I will not say unscrupulously, but per- 
 tinaciously) fought inch by inch, as if this had been 
 something which concerned merely the private rights of 
 parties, in place of involving great criminal charges 
 against the representatives of a great political party. 
 
 Further, I charge that this case has been conducted 
 with the purpose (uuavowed, but with the purpose), by 
 a repetition of the incidents of crime, by calling witness 
 after witness to prove facts of crime which were not 
 in dispute, I will not say of prejudicing your Lord- 
 ships' minds (although it would be a marvel if it had 
 not to some extent done so), but for the unavowed pur- 
 pose of deepening in the public mind the prejudice 
 existing, already grievous and sad enough, and suggest- 
 ing that the Irish people are a nation of criminals ; for, I 
 do ask your Lordships, if that was not the purpose un- 
 avowed, what was the legitimate object which was to be 
 served by calling to tell their sad and distressing story 
 in the gaze of the public and in their widow weeds, for 
 example, Lady Mountmorres, and Mrs. Blake, and Mrs. 
 Curtin, and ]\Irs. Fitzmaurice ? 
 Charged as ]\Iy Lords, ouc othcr poiut in this connection. Before 
 acy. your Lordships the case has been a good deal put by the 
 
 Attorney-General as being a criminal charge of criminal 
 conspiracy, the criminal conspiracy being the Land 
 League, criminal with reference either to its means or to 
 its object, or with reference to both. It was not so put 
 in the original libels. I need not point out that putting 
 the case in that way has opened wide the doors of 
 evidence in a way that in no other form could be done, 
 because, to begin with, it enabled the prosecutors, with- 
 out starting with the proof of the conspiracy and the 
 
I OPENING OBSERVATIONS 23 
 
 making out of its illegality, to prove a number of facts, 
 promising to show the relevancy of these facts and asking 
 your Lordships to draw, as in conspiracy cases I admit 
 juries have been asked to draw, from the whole of the 
 story the fact of the conspiracy as the result. 
 
 What does this doctrine of conspiracy mean ? If the 
 illegal coml)iuation or conspiracy is to be the Land 
 League, or, in its later stage, the National League, of 
 course it means that a man in a remote part of Kerry or 
 of C'Ork, who was a member of the Land League, was 
 responsible for wdiat Mr. Parnell did, wdio was a 
 member of the Land League, although he had never 
 seen Mr. Parnell, and knew nothing about what he had 
 said or what he had done ; and equally the converse : 
 that Mr. Parnell would be responsible for wliat a man, in 
 a remote j^art of the country, whom he had never seen 
 and whom he had never spoken to, and over whom he 
 had no control, had done. I say to begin with (and to 
 this I shall have at a later stage to recur), that is not 
 the case made in the original libels. That is not the Not the 
 case which your Lordships were asked to try. But I am 
 dwelling upon the grievous hardships which it has in- 
 flicted upon the accused. I could give many illustra- 
 tions. I will give one. Under this view of conspiracy 
 (and I pray your Lordships to understand I am not com- 
 plaining of any ruling of your Lordships ; I am pointing 
 to what I conceive to be the grievous consequences and 
 injustice from tlie course that has been taken by the 
 })rosecution) the man Le Caron has been allowed to state 
 what Egan told him, what Brennan told Egan, what 
 Sexton had done and said to Brennan. Let me repeat 
 it. Le Caron has been allowed to state that Mr. Egan 
 told him, Le Caron, that ]\Ir. Brennan had told him, Mr. 
 Egan, that Mr. Sexton (now the Lord Mayor of Dublin) 
 
24 OPENING OBSERVATIONS i 
 
 had aided Brennan in his flight from justice. So that 
 fourth hand the statement has been sown broadcast, and 
 Mr. Sexton, holding a responsible public position and a 
 member of Parliament, on this statement, fourth hand 
 of Le Caron, on this doctrine of the law of conspiracy, is 
 supposed to be affectrjd by such hearsay testimony as that. 
 Its uu- Lastly, I complain that no attempt has been made — 
 
 Prlseut- certainly no successful attempt has been made — to pre- 
 "^''"*' sent this case to your Lordships with any method. 
 There has been thrown down before your Lordships a 
 heterogeneous, confused mass of evidence, a tangled 
 skein, without any assistance to your Lordships in un- 
 ravelling it, with no order of time, no order of subject, no 
 order of place, no order of person, and it has been left to 
 me and my learned friends to endeavour, as we shall do, 
 out of this mass of evidence — in large part irrelevant, as 
 we submit ; in large part, where relevant, unreliable ; in 
 small part new — to extract the real issues which we 
 submit this Commission has to try. I say nothing of 
 the intolerable burden of anxiety, of expense, which this 
 Commission casts upon these accused ; but in leaving 
 this part of the case I will say that, apart from the 
 letters, so far as evidence of direct complicity with crime 
 is concerned, either as a jyi'iori hoiug a party to or 
 authorising it, or by being a party to its condonation 
 and to its protection, there is no evidence, if I were to 
 sit down this moment, upon which, as I submit to 
 your Lordships, if you were sitting in a criminal court, 
 could even allow the case to go to a jury, 
 oppor- But I rejoice that the time and the occasion have at 
 
 vindica- last comc wlicu the accused can be heard broadly in 
 vindication, and justification, and explanation of their 
 conduct and of their policy. It will be necessary that I 
 should trouble your liOrdships at, I am afraid, consider- 
 
I OPENING OBSERVATIONS 25 
 
 able length. Your Lordsbii)s will expect from me no 
 apology for doing so. It will be necessary to trouble 
 your Lordships with a political retrospect ; it will be 
 necessary to trouble your Lordships with the social his- 
 tory of Ireland. I shall ask from your Lordships only 
 at this stage of the case an attentive hearing. That I 
 am sure I shall have. I would, of course, be glad if I 
 could count upon a sympathetic hearing. 
 
 Now, what is the outline of the case presented by 
 the Attorney-General ? I have spoken in general lan- 
 guage of the charge or charges. How has it been pre- 
 sented in the Attorney-General's opening? I have said 
 it has been an undigested and unmethodical mass of 
 evidence, and nothing more, so far as evidence goes ; and 
 I am sure I shall not Ijc misunderstood when I say (I 
 feel bound to say it) that the Attorney- General has not 
 made even the attempt, in his opening, to afford your 
 Lordships, by any statesmanlike introduction of his case, 
 any clue to the position of tilings in Ireland, without 
 which clue that position must Ije misunderstood. 
 
 My Lords, the causes of the difficulties in Ireland in Root of 
 1879 are deep down in the history of Ireland; and do cuity, 
 not let it be said, if I trouble your Lordships, not at great 
 length, with a retrospective history, that I am only raking 
 up musty ancient records. In order to understand the 
 feelings, motives, and springs of action of nations and of 
 individual men, and the leading citizens in a nation, you 
 cannot avoid looking back to the earlier history of the 
 country. As well might one attempt to understand the 
 genius of the English people and of English institutions 
 without reference to the Ee volution and the Bill of 
 nights and the Reform Bill and Free Trade ; as well 
 niiglit one endeavour to understand the position of 
 Frenclimen and the views of the French people without 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 reference to its great revolution and the history of its 
 earlier and its later Empire, as to endeavour to understand 
 the position of the Irish question without reference 
 to its earlier history and the economical and the social 
 causes which have brought about the condition of 
 things in Ireland, which has been the fruitful cause of 
 disturbance and of crime. In any case this would have 
 been a task which I should have desired to undertake. 
 False From the mode in which the case has been presented 
 
 p/cturr^ by the Attorney-General, even if I were minded to avoid 
 it, I could not avoid it. The Attorney-General has 
 thrown down the challenge, I must take it up. What 
 was his opening? So far as his view is concerned, 
 Ireland might as well have been dropped from the firma- 
 ment starting on a new career in the year 1879 ; so far 
 as his opening is concerned, Ireland was a modern 
 Arcadia, a kind of Garden of Eden, before the intrusion 
 of the serpent, a country in which happy patriarchal 
 relations existed between the Irish tenant class and the 
 landlords, the landlords looking down with parental 
 regard upon the interests and the condition of their 
 tenants, the tenants looking up with eyes of reverential 
 gratitude to their friends and protectors the landlords ! 
 The Attorney-General said that there had sprung up in 
 Ireland from and after 1879, to the disarace of the 
 country and the character of its people, crimes unknown 
 before. Previously crime liad not followed evictions ; 
 no such thing as land-grabl)ing was heard of; no such 
 thing as denunciation of land-grabbing ; no such thing 
 as interference with the payment by external pressure of 
 unjust rents ; no objection taken to the man who 
 tenanted an evicted farm ; no evil consequences followed 
 to him. There were indeed, said the Attorney-General, 
 occasional murders of landlords, but the character of 
 
I OPENING OBSERVATIONS 27 
 
 recent crime in Ireland from 1879 had been, not the 
 murders of landlords, but the hopeless grinding tyranny 
 of helpless tenants. That picture is utterly, absolutely, 
 liistorically false ! 
 
 Tlic very same things that happened from 1879 to 
 1883 have happened in former times in Ireland, as I shall 
 sliow you, 1)ut in a much greater degree (God be thanked 
 for the improvement). I shall show you that from the 
 same causes the same results in greater volume have 
 flowed, and if this be established, if I shall prove that by 
 facts and figures, then I shall go far to establish that the 
 Land League was not the fons et origo mail of the 
 troubles of 1879, that the crimes of 1879 and of subse- 
 quent years sprang, as previous history and experience 
 had shown, from the same causes — causes which received 
 peculiar force and operated with peculiar eflect in recur- 
 rent periods of distress. 
 
 And, lastly, I shall show your Lordships in this con- Distressed 
 nection that in the year 1879 the third of a bad series 1379/° 
 of years (for 1877 w\as bad, 1878 was bad, 1879 was 
 bad), there were in the public mind of Ireland hideous 
 recollections conjured up again, and apprehensions of a 
 recurrence of the state of things which had decimated 
 the pojDulation of Ireland in 1846 and in 1847. Famines 
 again and again recurring — not the famines of Egypt of 
 old, or of India of later days, not famines where the 
 hand of Nature had withheld its gifts in sufficient 
 abundance for the support of the people, for in the worst 
 of these years Ireland had produced and had exported, 
 to pay unjust rents, tenfold sufficient to have supported 
 the population and kept it alive. 
 
 My Lords, the Attorney-General went further. He 
 said that the Ivand League was a pretext aiid a cover 
 for a political movement. That the aim was not the 
 
OPENING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 relief of distress — not to keep famine from the peasant's 
 door, not to preserve him in tlie enjoyment of his little 
 home and holding — but that the object was to strike at 
 Irish landlordism as representing the English garrison 
 in Ireland, with a view to secure the ultimate inde- 
 pendence of Ireland, and the construction of an Irish 
 Republic in that island. In making that statement the 
 Attorney- General, your Lordships will recollect, was 
 but following one of the heads of the particulars, if such 
 they can be called, which have been delivered under 
 your Lordships' order. He says the motives for this 
 movement were partly personal — personal ambition. 
 He did not say personal aggrandisement — personal 
 ambition, but that the efforts of the Irish party were 
 not in any real earnest sense addressed to any real social 
 grievance. My Lords, I have said that the earlier 
 portion of his statement was historically, literally false. 
 It w^ould be, perhaps, too much to expect the Attorney- 
 General, although he is a member of a Parliament which 
 legislates for Ireland, to know mucli of Irish history. 
 But his colleagues, my learned friend Mr. Murphy, and 
 my learned friends Mr. Atkinson and Mr. Ronan, whom 
 we of the English bar are all pleased and glad to see here, 
 I think might have supplemented the Attorney-General's 
 want of information on this point. 
 Historical I shall liavc to sliow your Lordships in my discussion 
 
 of this cjuestion, not merely how false this picture is 
 historically, but how completely the parallel can be 
 drawn between the former existence, not at one but at 
 several periods of time, of recurrent distress, recurrent 
 oppression, and recurrent crime ; but I shall also find it 
 necessary, in order that your Lordships may appreciate 
 the political part of the charge which the Attorney- 
 General made, and which is imputed in the particulars 
 
 Sketch 
 
I OPENING OBSERVATIONS 29 
 
 to wliicli I referred, to trouble your Lordships with a 
 short sketcli of the political movements of the country. 
 
 In dealing with this I again repeat in no sense shall 
 it be a party political treatmejit. I shall have to speak 
 of movements perfectly constitutional, and of movements 
 unconstitutional and against the law. I can only ask 
 your Lordships in considering and in following me iu 
 this statement, to try at least, in regard to that state- 
 ment, to bear in mind that those unconstitutional move- 
 ments always .nimed, always ju'ofessed to be aimed, at 
 the assertion of tiie right of the Irish people to have 
 a potent voice in their own government, a potent 
 voice in the making of the law which they were 
 <;alled upon to obey and to reverence. I will only ask 
 your Lordships, if you can, to extend to nn; and to my 
 story the same broad consideration which the British- 
 speaking public have commonly extended — while not 
 often approving, it may be, of the methods pursued, 
 nevertheless always extended, at least in the case of 
 other countries — of Poland, of Hungary, of Lombardy, 
 of the Slav provinces — to popular movement, often 
 irregularly conducted, and by means wliicli could not 
 carry moral approbation in some circumstances. They 
 looked upon it at all events with sympathy, because of 
 tlie motive, the national, the patriotic motives, wliicli 
 underlaid tlieir efforts ; and in speaking of Irish move- 
 ments I would remind your Lordships that these men 
 at nny of the revolutionary periods, after all showed 
 t]ieir sincerity in this, that they carried tlieir lives and 
 their liberties in their hands ; and that if \ 'ju disapprove 
 of their aims or disapprove of tlieir means, and condemn 
 tlieir wisdom, at least it cannot be impntod to them, 
 or as far as I know, to any of them, that they had 
 personal aims or personal aggrandisement. 
 
II 
 
 POLITICAL RETROSPECT 
 
 Grattau's I NOW come to ca short sketcli, a political retrospect, 
 Pallia- ^^.j^|-^ wliicli I must troublc your Lordships. Whatever 
 difference of opinion may exist in reference to the Parlia- 
 ment of Ireland of 1782, one must at least admit that it 
 was one which had its existence under conditions of 
 o-reat difficulty. It did not in any real sense represent the 
 Irish people. It cannot be new, I think, to any of your 
 Lordships to state that not only was no Catholic eligible 
 for membership in tliat Parliament, l)ut that no Catholic 
 even possessed the right of franchise to vote for a 
 member of that Parliament. And therefore, when the 
 Imperial Parliament at Westminster gave its adhesion 
 to that scheme by the celebrated resolution that the 
 riaht of that Irish Parliament should never thereafter 
 be questioned or questionable, it gave its adhesion to an 
 experiment which I admit was tried under difficult 
 conditions. But, my Lords, it was an Irish Parliament, 
 it was subject to a force greater than law— of local public 
 opinion in Ireland — and narrow as was the basis upon 
 which it rested, little representative as it was, it, in its 
 short career, gave promise of bringing itself in accord 
 with the general wants and wishes of the whole of the 
 Irish people. My Lords, it was in that very year, 1782, 
 that, for the first time since the introduction of the 
 
n POLITICAL RETROSPECT 31 
 
 penal laws, an Irish Catholic could -hold the freehold of 
 an inch of Irish land ; ^nd it was a few years later, in 
 1793, that that Parliament and the ascendency party — 
 for it was the Parliament of the ascendency party — 
 first opened the doors of the constitution to the Irish 
 Catholic voter. 
 
 It was a germ capable of infinite development for 
 good, mainly because it was an institution breathing the 
 breath of popular opinion in Ireland, subject to being 
 influenced by tliat breath, capable of development in the 
 direction of the aspirations of its people. 
 
 . My Lords, I pass by the hapless story of the Ilebel- 
 lion of 1798, fomented, as I think most historians now 
 admit it to have been fomented, by external causes and 
 agencies. I'pass by the Act of Union described by one 
 of the most distinguished historians of our time, and one 
 not in political sympathy with those I here represent — 
 I mean Mr. Lecky — as an Act which by uniting the 
 Legislatures divided tlie peoples. 
 
 I could dwell upon this, for herein, in my humble Uiipatri- 
 sul»mission to your Lordships, is the root of the Irish erning 
 difliculty, that froin the moment that Act passed, the *"^''''^* 
 governing class in Ireland — mainly the landlord class, 
 mainly the ascendency class, mainly the class sepa- 
 rated by religion and often by race from the bulk of 
 the people, ceased to be thereafter under the influence, 
 the control, the impulse of the opinion of the people 
 amongst whom they lived, and from whom they 
 derived the means of supporting their stations of 
 dignity and of afiluence. In a word, they (^eased to be 
 patriotic. 
 
 My Lords, from that date they ceased to care for or 
 to regard Irish opinion. They looked to Ij^ngland in 
 times of trouble and of difficulty. They cried, as from 
 
32 POLITICAL RETROSPECT n 
 
 the housetops, that- they alone were the chass to l)e 
 depended upon, that they alone were loyal, that they 
 alone were true to the British connection, that they 
 alone were to be depended upon to hold and support 
 this connection. And, my Lords, the result of that is 
 shown in the history of the dealings of that class with 
 their tenants, which is the main cause which has led to 
 the state of things which your Lordships are inquiring 
 into here to-day. 
 
 The idea that I would impress in this connection 
 upon your Lordships' minds was well ex^jressed the 
 other day by a distinguished living statesman when, in 
 view of one of those too often recurring scenes of 
 wholesale evictions in Ireland, that statesman in his 
 place in the House of Commons addressed to the 
 Irish landlords the appeal that they would exercise 
 their rights so as not to offend the conscience of the 
 English ]^eoj)le! Not an appeal to them to regard 
 their own people, not an appeal to them to bring 
 themselves into harmony and consonance with those 
 by whom they lived, but so to exercise their rights as 
 not to offend the conscience of the English people ! 
 My Lords, that was the significant language of Lord 
 Hartington. 
 Moveineuts I pass by tliG attempt, the unsuccessful attempt, at 
 i°!tk.u ami' revolution in the time of Robert Emmett, who on the 
 Repeal. scaffold, youug iu Hfc, paid the penalty of his political 
 crime. I pass by the story of tlie long contest for 
 Catholic emancipation, promised in 1800, and only 
 granted in 1829, when the Duke of Wellington said 
 that the alternative was civil war. T pass by the Tithe 
 War, for I must come to that in the history of the 
 crime of Ireland. I pass by the Repeal Movement and 
 the Young Ireland movement with one passing comment. 
 
II POLITICAL RETROSPECT 33 
 
 The Young Irelaud movemeut iu 1848, in its later young 
 development, was unquestionably an unconstitutional 18*48"'' 
 movement — a physical force movement, in the English 
 mind principally associated with that aspect of the case ; 
 but, my Lords, that is not the true import of the story 
 of the Young Ireland movement of 1848. That physical 
 force part of it was but an insignificant and unimportant 
 part. That movement was the precursor, in its earlier 
 stage, of the later and stronger and more successful 
 movement with which the name of IMr. Parnell is asso- 
 ciated as its leader, carried on by him under happier 
 conditions, with an awakened public intelligence, with a 
 broader franchise, and with therefore a broader platform 
 of action. To that Young Ireland movement, in con- 
 nection with which are such honoured names as O'Brien 
 and Thomas Davis, and John Mitchel — with all his 
 faults as to methods and as to means — Charles Gavan 
 Duffy, John Martin, John B. Dillon, and many others 
 whom I could name : to that party the merit is to be 
 attributed that they sowed the seeds then amongst the 
 Irish people of self-reliance and unsectarianism, for 
 sectarianism had too often blotted and corrupted Irish 
 movements. Insisting, as they did, upon the right of 
 self-government, they worked might and main for the 
 removal of what they considered social grievances — for 
 land reform, church disestablishment, and for education. 
 The reward at this time was prosecution, exile, broken 
 hearts, for some of them. Of those who survive, one 
 may point to Sir Charles Duffy, who, despairing of any 
 success in his own land, went abroad to Australia, and, 
 *in the free air of a self-governing colony, rises to the 
 highest position that that colony could afford him as 
 8[)ea]cer, as Prime Minister, and comes back in his 
 advanced years here, the man four times prosecuted in 
 
 D 
 
34 POLITICAL RETROSPECT " 
 
 Ireland, to receive titles and dignities at the hands of 
 the Sovereign. 
 
 Its My Lords, there are other names not so directly 
 
 associated with the political movement in Ireland at 
 that time, but honourably associated with the creation 
 of a body of literature little known, I fear, to your Lord- 
 ships, and little known in this country, but a body of 
 literature which, considering the circumstances under 
 which it came into existence, and the comparatively 
 brief period over which it extended, is creditable to the 
 genius of the nation and to the efforts of the men who 
 produced it. And notable amongst those names are 
 the names of Thomas Davis, of Mr. Justice O'Haoan. 
 the president of the Land Court in Ireland, of Sir 
 Charles Duffy, of John Kells Ingram, of Trinity College, 
 Dublin, and a number of others whose names I will not 
 stop to recite. 
 
 My Lords, after this movement of 1848 there came 
 a relapse, and I would ask your Lordships to note — for it 
 has significance and importance in the consideration of 
 this question, even the very question before your Lord- 
 ships — how the waves of constitutional and unconstitu- 
 tional agitation succeeded one another, and how, after 
 the country made an effort in a constitutional direction 
 and failed, it seemed to fall back into the slough of 
 despond, and then secret societies and illegal combina • 
 tions burrowed the country, working their evil work. 
 
 independ- I^^ 1852 tlic couutry pullcd itsclf together again. 
 
 tfon— ^°^'^^^y had in Ireland a strangely restricted franchise. 
 
 Land They have to this day, compared with England and 
 
 1850-52. Scotland, a strangely restricted municipal franchise. 
 I am now only referring to the Parliamentary franchise. 
 So remarkable is the contrast that, given two towns of 
 equal population, the one in Ireland and the other in 
 
II POLITICAL RETROSPECT 35 
 
 England, the English town would have twice, some- 
 times three times as many voters as the town of corre- 
 sponding population in Ireland. There was in these 
 days also no right, except the right of open voting. 
 These were the times when, as record after record shows, 
 the voters were driven to the poll as sheep into a pen 
 l)y the landlord, tlie agent, and the bailiff. But still, in 
 face of great dilliculty and by great sacrifice, a party 
 was returned to the House of Commons at Westminster, 
 pledged to independent opposition, pledged to laud 
 reform, pledged to take no office under, Ijut to hold 
 aloof from, every Government that did not make that 
 a cabinet question. 
 
 The prime figures of that movement were again Sir 
 Charles Dufiy and a noble-hearted Englishman of great 
 head and of great magnanimity of character, Frederick 
 Lucas, who went to Ireland not as a politician but as 
 editor of a Catholic newspaper, whose great and mag- 
 nanimous soul and sympathies were touched by the 
 oppression which he saw around him, and who threw 
 himself earnestly into the efi'ort to try and relieve the 
 l)eople among whom he had chosen to live, from some 
 portion at least of the evils that weighed upon them. 
 
 My Lords, they started a tenant league in the North 
 and the South. The principal representatives of the 
 South w^ere Lucas and Duff'y ; in the North, Dr. 
 M'Knight, a Presbyterian journalist, and the Rev. John 
 Rogers, then or afterwards Moderator of the General 
 Assembly in the North. The story of that party of 
 independent opposition is a shameful story, and I pass 
 it over — a story of violated oaths, of broken pledges, 
 and of another relapse of the Irish people into the slough 
 of despond. They had with efiort and sacrifice sought 
 to create and maintain this party — a great majority of 
 
36 POLITICAL RETROSPECT 
 
 Movement. 
 
 the party were honest, but they had failed in obtaining 
 redress ; they had tried, implored the British Parliament 
 to deal with this land question and had failed ; and then 
 years passed over during which the Parliamentary re- 
 presentation of Ireland was of a character that I will 
 not describe further than by saying that it was self- 
 seeking; and discreditable. 
 Fenian Mcauwhile cveuts had been happening abroad — 
 
 across the Atlantic — which have an important bearing 
 on one part of this case. The stream of emigration had 
 been going on to America. A new generation had 
 sprung up there. The American war of North and 
 South had taken place. In the armies, of the North 
 principally, many Irishmen had served, and amongst 
 those men arose, my Lords, and from those men mainly 
 came, the impulse of this Fenian movement which ])egan 
 to raise its head very soon after the cessation of the 
 American war, and which became undoubtedly an im- 
 portant factor in the secret movement in relation to 
 Ireland, I have pointed out the constitutional efforts 
 made in 1852, and for years subsequently. Now we 
 have the unconstitutional, the illegal, the secret move- 
 ment. My Lords, I wish to be quite plain with your 
 Lordships in my treatment of this, as of every other 
 Irish movement. I think that a politician of our day, and 
 a member of the present Government, was most unfairly 
 treated when he expressed his views, as ftxr back as 
 1868, about the true character of the Fenian movement. 
 I mean Mr. Henry Mathews. He, with great courage 
 as I then thought and think now, at a time when there 
 was a great tide of popular prejudice against, and as he 
 thought misrepresentation of, the Fenians, said some 
 words, at least in palliation, if not in justification of their 
 conduct and position. My Lords, it is true to say of 
 
II POLITICAL RETROSPECT 37 
 
 the Fenian organisation as it tlien existed that it was 
 not a party of assassination, but that it was a revolu- 
 tionary party that k^oked to physical, force for the redress 
 of Irish grievances. What some sections of it, or some 
 organisations springing from it, may in later days have 
 developed into, when its responsible heads have been 
 drawn away into tlie constitutional agitation, I know 
 not, and will not for the moment inquire. But it was 
 ]iot true historically, it was a calumny, to allege that 
 the Fenian body Avas anything but a ^ihysical force 
 movement ; and, my Lords, it is right further to say, 
 that so far as agrarian crime was concerned, the lowest 
 point that agrarian crime ever reached in Ireland was 
 the time when the Fenian movement w^as at its heiglit. 
 The truth is that in every movement which took place in 
 Ireland, constitutional or unconstitutional, anything 
 which afforded the hope of redress can be shown histori- 
 cally to have always led to a diminution and not an 
 increase of crime. 
 
 ]\Iy Lords, then come the Disestablishment Act of Remedial 
 18G9, the Land Act of 1870, the inauguration ofan?^"'^^^ 
 ]\Ir. Butt's Home Eule policy between 1870 and ]874, ^s^*"*'°"- 
 and fmally, after Mr. Butt's death, the coming to 
 the front of Mr. Parnell, somewhere between the years 
 1870 and 1879, as the undoubted leader of the Irish 
 Parliamentary })arty. 
 
 One or two things are noticeable in the short 
 account that I liave given. First, that succession 
 of waves of agitation to which I have already alluded 
 — how when the failure of constitutional methods has 
 become plain, the people have resorted to or a large 
 section of them have resorted to, unconstitutional and 
 secret methods ; and one other feature is also noticealjle 
 ■ — a sad comment upon the government of Ireland — 
 
38 POLITICAL RETROSPECT n 
 
 that there were during that period four main remedial 
 measures — Catholic Emancipation, the Tithe Act, Dis- 
 establishing Act, and the Land Act of 1870 — and each 
 one of them either follows upon unconstitutional move- 
 ments or is prompted by the dread of a physical force 
 movement. 
 
 I have now to consider the history of what has taken 
 place since the advent to leadership of Mr. Parnell, and 
 what I will say is this, and state it only in a sentence, 
 that he has tried to act upon the advice which a 
 distinguished Irish judge. Chief Baron Woulfe, once 
 gave, " to create and foster public opinion in Ireland 
 and make it racy of the soil." He has sought to 
 create, and has succeeded in creating and sustaining 
 a party which, whatever criticisms may be made 
 upon it, has, as he desired it should, held itself 
 independent of all political parties, and has not shown 
 itself, whatever other faults or adverse criticism 
 may be addressed or aj^plied to it — has not shown 
 itself capable of being tempted by personal gain or 
 personal advantage from the strict, the straight dis- 
 charge, as they believed, of their duty as Irish repre- 
 sentatives. 
 
 My Lords, by that course Mr. Parnell has forced 
 Work."" public attention upon the Irish question. He has 
 awakened the conscience of England upon the Irish 
 question ; he has, in season and out of season, persistently 
 — unreasonably it may be in the minds of many — urged 
 the cause of Ireland, and he has a right to claim and 
 he does claim that in ten years he and his party have 
 helped to accomplish more of solid gain and of solid 
 remedial advance in legislative measures for Ireland 
 than were accomplished in any previous hundred 
 years. When I speak of solid gain to Ireland I 
 
 Mr 
 ParneU's 
 
POLITIC A L RE TROSPECT 
 
 39 
 
 do not mecan — do not let me l)e misunderstood — I 
 am not speaking of gain to Ireland as meaning ill to 
 England ; my position is and my proposition is that 
 everything which goes to allay discontent in Ireland, 
 which gives to the people a hold in their own laud, 
 which goes to win them to the side of law and of order 
 —all these make for the good of England as well as for 
 the good of Ireland, and for the good of the Empire, to 
 the building up of which Ireland has, at least according 
 to her means and her o])])ortunitics, by the arms and 
 genius of her children, contributed her full share. 
 
III. 
 
 PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CHIME 
 
 Historic Now, iiiy Loi'ds, in the next place, I have to introduce 
 estimony. ^^ yQu^ Loi'dships a Statement, historically considered, 
 not of political movements, but what I may call for 
 clearness and for convenience a statement of the pre- 
 disposing causes to Irish crime, and as far as I sliall 
 make historical reference, I shall cite only historical 
 authorities that are not supposed to be in political 
 accord with those for whom I am speaking. It would 
 perhaps be an impertinence if I were to suggest that a 
 great deal of what your Lordships will Ije troubled with 
 by me may be found in Mr. Lecky's second volume of 
 the Eighteenth Centurij, in Mr. Froude's Emjlisli in 
 Ireland, and in Mr. Goldwin Smitli's IrisJi History and 
 Irish Character. Ikit, my Lords, the four grounds, the 
 predisposing causes are these : the restrictions of Irish 
 commerce and suppression of Irish manufactures ; the 
 penal code, which, while commercial legislation had on tlie 
 one hand thrown the people upon the land as their only 
 means of livelihood, on the other hand, came in to 
 prevent the bulk of the people acquiring any permanent 
 interest in the land ; the third cause, the uncontrolled 
 power of the landlords in the exaction of oppressive 
 rents ; and the fourth cause, the general misgovernment 
 of the country, and the consequent distrust of the 
 
Ill PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CRIME 41 
 
 Government which was generated thereby in the Irish 
 mind. 
 
 JMy Lords, I am literally within the bounds of truth 
 when I say that all historians, English, Irish, and 
 foreign, concur in this opinion, that until a period 
 within living memory the story of Irish government 
 was one of the blackest pages in the whole history of the 
 world ; that until a period within living memory the 
 government of the country was directed, not to the good 
 of the many, but to the maintenance of a privileged few, 
 and proceeded, until a period within living memory, 
 u])()n what has been called by one distinguished writer 
 " the detestable principle that to keep Ireland weak was 
 the most convenient way of governing." 
 
 iMy Lords, I can pass over these subjects lightly, but Repression 
 I must touch upon each of them. To begin with, Ireland ^ 
 w;is excluded from the benefit of the Navigation Laws ; 
 slie was shut out not only from colonial trading, she 
 Avas actually shut out even from exports to the sister 
 kimrdom of Great Britain. Cattle could not l)e so 
 exported. The result was the cultivation on a large 
 scale of sheep farms ; from that grew rapidly, generally, 
 and to important dimensions, a woollen trade in Ireland, 
 and when that had grown to a point at which it seemed 
 to threaten English trade, English traders came to the 
 Crown to put it down, and it was put down by the 
 imposition of enormous duties. The linen trade was 
 not in rivalry with any corresponding English trade, 
 :ind promises Avere held out — })romises whicli were not 
 fulfilled — that advantage was to be given to that trade 
 as compensation for injury to the other. The result 
 wns that the only ]iossible means, in the existing economic 
 ;iu(l polilicnl condition of tilings, of relieving the enor- 
 mous pressure of desire for the possession of land was 
 
42 PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CRIME m 
 
 closed, for the manufactures and tlie export trade of 
 Ireland were crippled and destroyed. And Mr. Lecky, 
 my Lords, says, in liis second volume, at page 208 : — 
 
 " The natural course of Irish commerce was utterly checked, and 
 her shipping interest, such as it was, was annihilated." 
 
 And Mr. Froude, in his first volume, at page 395, says : — 
 
 " The real motive for the suppression of agricultural improve- 
 ment was the same as that which led to the suppression of mauii- 
 factures — the detestable opinion that to govern Ireland conveniently, 
 Ireland must be kept weak. The advisers of the Crown, with an 
 infatuation which now appears like insanity, determined to keep 
 closed the one remaining avenue by which Ireland could have 
 recovered a gleam of prosperity." 
 
 My Lords, a distinguished man of remarkably calm 
 and judicial mind, I mean Lord Dufferin, has in his 
 Irish Emigration and the Tenure of Land in Ireland, 
 at page 129, used this extraordinary language : — 
 
 " From Queen Elizabeth's reign luitil within a few 3'ears all the 
 known and authorised commercial confraternities of Great Britain 
 never for a moment relaxed their relentless grip on the trades of 
 Ireland. One by one each of our nascent industries was either 
 strangled in its birth or handed over gagged and bound to the 
 jealous custody of the rival interest in England, until at last every 
 fountain of Avealth was hermetically sealed, and even the traditions 
 of commercial enterprise have perished through desuetude." 
 
 Then he goes through the Acts, and proceeds in the 
 sense which I have already explained to your Lordships 
 to show that the effect of this had been to intensify and 
 create the difficulty on the Land Question, and that 
 state of things with which your Lordships are already 
 too well familiar. 
 
 " The owners of England's pastures opened the campaign. As 
 early as the commencement of the sixteenth century the beeves of 
 Roscommon, Tipperary, and Queen's County undersold the produce 
 of the English grass counties in their own market. By an Act of 
 the 20th of Elizabeth, Irish cattle Avere declared a ' nuisance,' and 
 
Ill PREDISPOSING CA USES OF CRIME 43 
 
 their importation was prohibited. Forbidden to send our beasts 
 alive across the Channel, we killed them at home, and began to 
 supply the sister country with cured provisions. A second Act of 
 Parliament imposed prohibitorj^ duties on salted meats. The hides 
 of the animals still remained, but the same influence soon put a stop 
 to the importation of leather. Our cattle trade abolished, we tried 
 sheep farming. The shec}) breeders of England immediately took 
 alarm, and Irish wool was declared contraband by a Parliament of 
 Charles II. Headed in this direction we tried to work up the raw 
 material at home, but this created the greatest outcry of all. Every 
 maker of fustian, flannel, and broadcloth in the country rose up in 
 arms, and by an Act of AVilliam III. the woollen industry of Ireland 
 was extinguished, and 20,000 maiuifactiirers left the island. The 
 easiness of the Irish labour market and the cheapness of provisions 
 still giving us an advantage, even though we had to import our 
 materials, Ave next made a dash at the silk business ; but the silk 
 manufacturer proved as pitiless as the woolstaplers. The cotton 
 manufacturer, the sugar refiner, the soap and candle maker (who 
 especially dreaded the alinndance of our kelp), and any other trade 
 or interest that thought it worth its while to petition, Avas received 
 by Parliament Avith the same partial cordiality, until the most 
 searching scrutiny failed to detect a single vent through Avhich it 
 AA-as possible for the hated industry of Ireland to respire. But, 
 although excluded from the markets of Britain, a hundred harbours 
 gave her access to the universal sea. Alas ! a rival commerce on 
 her own element Avas still less Avelcome to England, and as early as 
 the reign of Charles II. the Levant, the ports of Europe, and the 
 oceans beyond the Cape Avere forbidden to the flag of Ireland. The 
 Colonial trade alone Avas in any manner open — if that could be 
 called an open trade Avhich for a long time precluded all exports 
 whatever, and excluded from direct importation to Ireland such 
 important articles as sugar, cotton, and tobacco. What has been 
 the consequence of such a system, pursued Avith relentless pertinacity 
 for 2.50 years? This: that, debarred from every other trade and 
 industry, the entire nation fl\xng itself back upon ' ilic land,' with as 
 fatal an impulse as Avhen a river AA'hose current is suddenly impeded 
 rolls back and drowns the valley it once fertilised." 
 
 So much for the commercial and industrial aspect of 
 the misgovernment of Ireland. 
 
44 PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CRIME in 
 
 The Penal My Lorcls, the penal code not merely deprived the 
 *-'°'^^' great bulk of the population of the elective franchise, 
 but it excluded them from corporations, the magistracy, 
 the bar. They could not become sherifts, solicitors, even 
 gamekeepers or constables. They could not buy or in- 
 herit land. They could only, and that was a relaxation, 
 have a terminable leasehold interest in land, and even 
 that could not be within a certain distance of a town, 
 and if the profits derived by reason of that termin- 
 able lease exceeded a third of the rent they became 
 disentitled to reap the further profit. Bribes were held 
 out to the Protestant informer against his Catholic 
 kinsman, to the Protestant wife against her Catholic 
 husband, to the Protestant child against his Catholic 
 father. The simplest rites of the religion of the multi- 
 tude were proscribed ; and, my Lords, the exclusion from 
 partnership in the corporations and the trade guilds had 
 a still further injurious efi'ect in the same direction, 
 because, inasmuch as tlie corporations were exclusively 
 in the hands of Protestants, inasmucli as the trade 
 guilds were exclusively in the hands of the Protestants, 
 even the common handicrafts were not acquired, could 
 not be acquired to any considerable extent, by the great 
 bulk of the Catholics of Ireland. 
 
 My Lords, that reformation which threw open 
 these corporations to some extent was not accomplished 
 until the year 1841 ; and O'Connell, I think I am 
 right in saying, was the first Catholic Lord Mayor of 
 the city of Dublin. But, my Lords, the so-called 
 reformation of the corporations again worked serious 
 mischief, because, in place of preserving the existing 
 corporations, reforming and throwing them open to the 
 whole people, and thus giving them at least some kind 
 of local self-government, the corporations which existed 
 
Ill PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CRIME 45 
 
 numbering, I think, altogether — I do not pledge myself 
 to the exact figure — sixty-five, were in great part 
 abolished, and I think only either ten or eleven of them 
 left witli local municipal government at all. My Lords, 
 I will avoid again going into the detail which is not 
 necessary, but I must trouble your Lordships with one 
 passnge which summarises and sums up the evils of this 
 system and points out its lasting eifects upon future 
 generations. It may be said that this is some years 
 ago, that I am speaking of ancient history. It is true 
 that it is some years ago, but, my Lords, fifty or one 
 hundred years is, in the life of a nation, less than a 
 day or a week in the life of mortal man. If there has 
 been by evil government in the past a crippling of the 
 effect of that progressive principle which is in all human 
 society, if there has been a crippling of that natural 
 effort, its evil effects do not pass away immediately the 
 restrictive force has been removed. 
 
 Mr. Froude, in summing up this question in his first 
 volume at page 301, says of this system : — 
 
 "It was intended to degrade and impoverish, to destroy in its 
 victims tlie spring and bnoyanc}^ of enterprise, to dig a deep cliasm 
 between Catholics and Protestants. These ends it fully attained. 
 It formed the social condition ; it regnlated the disposition of 
 property ; it exercised a most enduring and pernicious influence 
 upon the character of the people, and some of the worst features of 
 the latter may be traced to its influence. It may indeed be pos- 
 sible to find in the Statute-books both of Protestant and Catholic 
 countries laws corresponding to most parts of the Irish penal code, 
 and in some respects introducing its most atrocious provisions, but 
 it is not the less true that that code taken as a whole has a charac- 
 ter entirely distinct. It was directed not against the few, but 
 a[i;ainst the many. It was not the persecution of a sect, but the 
 degradation of a nation. It was the instrument employed by a 
 concpiering race su}>porte<l by a neighbouring power to crush to the 
 (lust tlic people among whom they were planted, and indeed when 
 
46 PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CRIME in 
 
 we remember that the greater part of it Avas in force for nearly a 
 century, that the victims of its cruelties formed at least three- 
 fourths of the nation, that this degrading and dividing influence 
 extended to every field of social, political, professional, intellectual, 
 and even domestic life, and that it was enacted without the provo- 
 cation of any rehellion, and in defiance of a statute which distinctly 
 guaranteed the Irish people from any further persecution on 
 account of their religion, it may justly be regarded as one of the 
 blackest pages in the history of persecution. In the words of 
 Burke : — 
 
 "'It was a complete system, full of cohesion and consistency, 
 well digested and well fitted in all its })arls — it was a machine of 
 wise and elaborate contrivance, and as well fitted for the oppression, 
 impoverishment, and degradation of the people, and the debasement 
 in them of human nature itself, as ever proceeded from the per- 
 verted ingenuity of man.' 'The judgment formed of it,' says ]\Ir. 
 Froude, ' by one of the noblest representatives of English Toryism 
 Avas very similar.' 'The Irish,' said Dr. Johnson, 'are in a most 
 unnatural state, for we see the minority prevailing over the majority. 
 There is no instance even in the ten persecutions of such severity as 
 that which the Protestants of Ireland have exercised against the 
 Catholics in Ireland.' " 
 
 Power of My Lords, I have mentioned as the third pre- 
 
 Landiords. disposing causc to Irish crime tlie uncontrolled landlord 
 power. This is a subject which I must develop at 
 greater length later. For the present purpose, I say that 
 that system gave practically the power of life and death 
 over the tenants of Ireland ; that the only measure of 
 the protection of the tenant was the sense of justice, l)ut 
 too often no protection, of tlie landlord ; that the greed 
 for land led to the promise to pay impossible rents ; that 
 those rents were extracted from the people so far as they 
 could be extracted, until they were reduced to the 
 condition in which Lord Palmerston described the L'ish 
 people as being upon the whole the worst clad, the 
 worst housed, the worst fed people upon the face of God's 
 earth. My Lords, Mr. Froude has given in a sentence 
 
Ill rREDISPOSING CA USES OF CRIME 47 
 
 at once a description and a condemnation of the Irish 
 laud system. He said : " Russia is spoken of as a political 
 despotism, tempered hy assassination ; so may the Irish 
 land system be described as a social despotism, tempered 
 by assassination." 
 
 If any of the persons here accused had made a speech 
 in thnt sense, clearly it would have been one of the 
 most formidable items in the indictment now preferred 
 against them ! ]\Iy Lords, this state of things could not 
 have endured — a state of things in which the interests of 
 tlie many were overlooked for tlie benefit of the few— if 
 there had been in Ireland that force of public opinion 
 greater than the law, stronger than the law ; greater 
 than the law, for it makes the law in a healthy, freely 
 governed community — stronger than the law, for it 
 controls the exercise of the rio;hts which the law gives — 
 rights which could not have existed if it had not been 
 that the political condition of Ireland had given to the 
 Irish landlords, the men who have gathered into their 
 hands the dignities and honours and power of the 
 country- — ^ given to them no motive to conciliate Irish 
 local opinion, for they had long ceased in any real 
 sense to be Irishmen, and had become merely Irish 
 rent -receivers. I am not speaking — I wish it to be 
 understood — of all of them, I am speaking of the broad 
 features of their history, and I am speaking of them as a 
 class. 
 
 JMy Lords, the results of this system were many. 
 It was not merely social degradation, it was even 
 also moral degradation, and the direction of that uncon- 
 trolled power has been manifested in some remarkable 
 ways. At times when the interests, the passing interests 
 of the landlords seemed to induce them to regard the 
 living population on the land sim^^ly as vermin to be 
 
48 PREDISPOSING CA USES OF CRIME 
 
 rooted out, it led, in times of distress and difficulty, to 
 those wholesale clearances which have led in turn to an 
 anomaly, than which there is none more remarkal)le in 
 the economic history of any country — 1 mean the fact 
 that you could go through Ireland to-day, in Roscommon, 
 in Meath, in Mayo, in many other counties, where there 
 is fertile land capable of producing great wealth, and yet 
 you may come across the ruins of a home, the traces of 
 a hamlet, but no human habitation or living being for 
 miles, and a little farther on the stiuile bleak hillside, as 
 any one can see in Donegal to-day, a crowded, congested 
 miserable population. What does tliat mean ? It means 
 that those wretched creatures, having nowhere to turn and 
 nothing to look to but the attempt to earn an existence 
 from the land, and driven from tlie wealth-sustaining 
 portions of the country where the population might be 
 doubled or trebled without disadvantage, are driven to 
 huddle together on the barren bosom of those hills to 
 earn such a livelihood as might scantily support life. 
 Misgovern- My Lords, tlic fourtli and last of the reasons or 
 causes which I suggest as predisposing to Irish crime is 
 of course the misgovernment of tJie country, and the 
 consequent mistrust with which tliat Government was 
 regarded. I liave already indicated the general grounds 
 for that distrust. I am anxious to avoid repeating my- 
 self. They are, that the Government was directed, not 
 by a regard and fair consideration of the interests of the 
 many, but with the view to the interests of the few. 
 The result was to show to the Irish people, or the 
 great bulk of them, the repressive not the beneficent 
 and protective side of government. The result further 
 was to reverse the natural order of the relation of 
 governors to the governed. I take leave to say, I pre- 
 sume in these days no one would douljt, that kingships. 
 
 nieut 
 
Ill PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CRIME 49 
 
 rc])u1)lics, all manners of government known to the world 
 and its political history, have been invented, not for the 
 benefit of kings or the leaders of republics, but for the 
 benefit of the peojile governed ; I say further, that in the 
 true and broad and just conception of the relations of 
 governors and governed, the governors are responsible to 
 the people whom they govern. I say that in Ireland all 
 tliat lias been forirotten and has been reversed ; that in 
 the administration of the law, in the executive processes 
 of the law, in the whole spirit of the law itself, it has been 
 in its main and broad lines carried out in a way not to 
 remove but to intensify and increase the spirit of 
 aversion to law and government which undoubtedly a 
 great portion of the Irish people feel. 
 
 ]\Iy Lords, Mr. Goldwin Smith, in his Irish History 
 and Irish Character, says, at page 139, that the Irish 
 government during the eighteenth century is, in fact, one 
 of the foulest pages in history, and goes on to say that the 
 mass of the people were socially and economically in a 
 state the most deplorable perhaps which history records 
 as having ever existed in any civilised nation. 
 
 My Lords, if to those general considerations I add ^bsentee- 
 this — absenteeism, which means one of two things, and 
 sometimes both — that the landlord either lets his estate 
 to a middleman, in which case he drew from the middle- 
 man the rent which that middleman promised, and he 
 left the tenant to the tender mercies of that middleman, 
 or he left the management of his estate, with no inter- 
 vening middleman, to an agent, he himself living abroad 
 or in England, know^ing nothing of the condition of his 
 people, and performing none of those kindly offices which 
 in tliis country arc regarded ordinarily as necessary 
 duties in tlic position of a landlord. If you add to this 
 furllier the fact tliat up to the period of which I am 
 
 E 
 
50 PREDISPOSING CA USES OF CRIME 
 
 talking, nay, I may say up to 1885, Ireland had a 
 restricted franchise and consequent want of political 
 power ; if to that there is added the fact of the wide 
 chasm which existed between classes, — the one class 
 the few, the possessors of all the fixed property of the 
 country, with no sympathy in point of religion, with 
 little sympatliy in point of race ; and on the other hand, 
 the great mass of the people, and recollect that there was 
 little or nothing of kindly action or legislation to bridge 
 this chasm over, I ask any candid-minded man, apart 
 from the heat of politics, apart from questions of 
 prejudice, what would he expect to follow from such a 
 state of things ? Would he expect a people well aflected 
 to the law, which brought them little comfort, and 
 brought no sunshine into their lives — a law which to 
 them showed mainly its aggressive side ? No ; you 
 would expect what history shows has happened, an abid- 
 ino- distrust of the law — 1 am *iiad to think not so strong 
 
 O oft 
 
 now as it once was, for there are mitigating circum- 
 stances — but you would expect to find a })eople, so 
 exposed as these people were, when recurrent distress 
 came, prone to resort for self-protection to combina- 
 tion, to extra-legal, to unconstitutional, aye, and even 
 to criminal means, for their own protection, for the 
 most profound observers upon the question of Irish 
 crime and its causes (to some of whom I shall have to 
 call your Lordships' attention in a lew moments) have 
 observed that the crime of Ireland differs from the crime 
 of every known country in the world in this, namely, 
 that it is to a large extent not the crime of an individual 
 directly, and in hot blood revenging a crime committed 
 by an individual, or an injury committed by an indi- 
 vidual, but that it is a crime which, as Sir George 
 Cornewall Lewis calls it, is of a protective kind, and com- 
 
Ill PREDISPOSING CAUSES OF CRIME 51 
 
 mitted, if not by, with the sympathy and in the interest 
 of, a great part of the people. 
 
 From this state of things what wouhl your Lordships 
 ex])ect? That secret societies wouhl spring up ; secret 
 societies at once tlie effect of misgovernmcnt, and them- 
 selves the cause of crime. And you have side by side 
 with tliese considerations this set of extraordinary 
 plicnomcna, the peo|)le universally described as of kindly 
 nature, and yet, as the history — the shocking history — 
 of this case has shown, sometimes guilty of the most 
 l)arl)arous cruelty ; people of kindly nature, accessible to 
 the inlluences of kindly w^ords and of kindly acts ; a 
 people preserving absolute })urity of domestic life under 
 conditions in which it is difficult to understand how it is 
 accomplished ; a i)eople who carry with them to the 
 ends of the eai'th love of kith aiid kindred and of country, 
 qualities wliic.h under a normal condition of things and 
 in a healthy state of society are, after all, the l)cst founda- 
 tions for a stable government and for the existence of a 
 <^on tented people. But in Ireland this gift of love of 
 country seems to become a misfortune for them ; and 
 stranger phenomenon still (strange I do not regard it, but 
 regarded 1)y many as a strange j^henomenon this), that 
 ])ractically the crime of Ireland, or in a notable degree, 
 is agrarian crime. What does this point to ? Does it 
 not point to this — thinking this matter over calmly and 
 dispassionately, as rcuisoning men, if you find the people 
 marked by many qualities of a noble kind, but disgraced 
 by crime of one particular kind, is not the conclusion 
 inevital)le that the sources, the causes, of that class of 
 f;rime are to be found in the condition of things with 
 which that particular class of crime is associated, or in 
 otlier woi'ds, with agrarian causes ? 
 
 iMy Loi'ds, I would like to utter, before I proceed to 
 
52 PREDISPOSING CA USES OE CRIME 
 
 the liistory of crime, one word of warning. I sliall liave 
 to speak (and it is a painful stoi-y) of tlie liistcny of 
 crime, going a considerable way back. It is a sad story, 
 but I hope I may warn your Lordships, without disre- 
 spect, against being led away into the notion that 
 because there is this black record of crime in the 
 past, therefore the Irish people are to be branded as a 
 nation of criminals. Mr. Lecky, at page 378 of his 
 second volume, speaking of how nnjnst an historian may 
 be if he dwells too much on the history of a people's 
 crimes, uses language which, even in connection with my 
 speech, I hope your Lordships will not think inappro- 
 priate : — 
 
 " In writing the history of a people " (he says) " it is neither 
 just nor reasonable to omit the record of its prevalent crimes. But 
 it is one thing to relate these, it is quite another thing to select the 
 criminals of a nation as the special representatives of its ideas. It 
 is peculiarly necessary that the history of such a nation as the Irish 
 should be written, if not with some generosity, at least with some 
 candour ; that a serious effort should be made to present in their 
 true proportions both the lights and the shades of the picture ; to 
 trace effects to their causes, and to make duo allowance for circum- 
 stances and for antecedents. When this is not done, or at least 
 attempted, history may easily sink to the level of the Avorst type of 
 party pamphlet." 
 
IV. 
 
 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 
 
 I NOW come to a serious cancl, as I conceive it to be, History of 
 an important part of this narration ; and that is the c,ime. 
 actual history of crime in Ireland, in order to show your 
 Lordships, as I have already foreshadowed, that wdien 
 there was no Land League which could be blamed, no 
 popular leaders who could be branded as accomplices in 
 crime, the same state of things which existed in 1879 
 existed in those former days, producing the same results, 
 intensified, aggravated, recurring again and again with 
 airain and again recurrino- distress. It is, of course, 
 ol.)viously necessary that I should do this, because if I 
 establish that and sliow in tlie condition of things in 
 1879 and subserpK'utly adequate reasons, historically 
 judged, for the crime, tlie milder crime, which then took 
 place, T, of course, have gone a long way to relieve those 
 who are here charged ; but it is here an imperative duty, 
 in view of the mode in whicli the case has been conducted 
 by the Attorney-General, who was instructed to assure 
 your Lordships that the crimes which occurred in 1879 
 and in subsequent years were crimes unknown in the his- 
 t(Hy of Ireland before the appearance of the Land League. 
 When your Lordships adjourned I was about to 
 endeavour to estaljlisli by reference to the actual 
 autlientic history of crime in Ireland the two propositions 
 
54 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 
 
 which I luul previously advanced. First, that with 
 Recurrent rccuiTeiit distress connected with given definite causes 
 Distress ^\^q^^ ^.^g recuiTcnt crime ; and secondly, that that re- 
 Recurreut g^rl.gnt ci'ime was of the same kind — directed against 
 
 (Time. c 
 
 the same persons, aimed at effecting the same results, 
 but much less in volume and intensity than tliat which 
 your Lordships have on this occasion to inquire into. 
 
 Something has been said in the course of this case 
 as to one of the most reprehensible of the crimes which 
 has been proved before your Lordships. I mean the 
 maiming of dumb beasts — a cowardly, detestable crime. 
 I do not know how far back it goes, l)ut there is certainly 
 a concurrence of testimony on the point, that it took 
 its rise from, and was the criminal expression of, dis- 
 approval of the system of clearances of tenants from 
 arable land with a view to turn that land into pasture 
 land. These houo-hinof crimes in 1711 are mentioned 
 by Mr. Lecky, amongst others, as having come info 
 existence by reason of the wholesale clearances which 
 then took place with the object of turning, as I have 
 intimated, arable land into pasture land; and in 1761, 
 which is the beginning of the formidable rising known 
 under the name of " Whiteboyism," it is undoubted that 
 "wiiite- the crimes and actions of the Whiteboys arose from 
 ^^'" cognate causes. Lideed, I might state to your Lord- 
 ships the opinion of no less a person than a celebrated 
 Lord Lieutenant of L'eland, namely, Lord Chesterfield, 
 who, in the fifth volume of his letters, uses this extra- 
 ordinary language dealing with tlie question of Wliite- 
 boyism. He ascribes the Whiteboy rising (these are 
 his words) : — 
 
 " To tlie sentiment in every human In-east that asserts man's 
 natural rights to liberty and good usage, and which will and ouglit 
 to rebel when provoked to a certain degree." 
 
HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 
 
 When your Lordships recollect the position which the 
 writer held in Ireland in relation to the government 
 of Ireland, I think it will he admitted that it must have 
 l)cen a very strong state of circumstances which would 
 have driven him to make or justified him in makiug 
 that remarkable pronouncement, 
 
 'I'he history of those clearances was followed by the 
 action of a section of the Whiteboys, known by the name 
 of "Levellers," because one of their operations was the "Level- 
 throwing down walls by which the landlords sought to 
 enclose for the purpose of letting to fresh tenants or for 
 ])asture certain commonaljle lands which the tenants 
 themselves had previously enjoyed ; and there is a very 
 curious account of the events of that period given in a 
 book, which I do not myself possess, but which I have 
 read, by an intelligent English traveller called Bush, in 
 a volume wliicli he has entitled Hihcrnia Curiosa. 
 Your Jjordships will find it referred to in Lecky. He 
 oives an account of this matter in the fourth volume, 
 beginning at page 319. He says : — 
 
 "As wc have alre.'ul}^ seen, the commercial code had artificiall}^ 
 limited in<lnstrial life, and the penal code, long after it had ceased 
 to l)e operative as a system of religious persecution, exercised the 
 most pernicious iniluence in deepening class division, rendering the 
 ascendancy party ])ractically absolute, driving enterjn'ise and capital 
 out of the country, and distorting in many ways its economical 
 development. A great population existed in Ireland, and were 
 lia1»itually on the vei'ge of famine, and when any economical change 
 took place which converted a part of the country from arable land 
 into pasture, and restricted the amount of labour, they found them- 
 selves absolutelj^ without resources. The AVhiteboy movement was 
 fii'st directed against the system of enclosing commons, which had 
 lately been carried to a gi-eat extent. According to a contemporary 
 aTul concurrent statement of Crawford the Protestant, and of Curry 
 the Catholic historian of the time, the landlords had even been 
 guilty not only of harshness, but of positive breach of contract, by 
 
56 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 withdrawing from the tenants a right of commonage which had 
 l)Con given them as ])art of their Ijargain Avhcn tlicy received their 
 small tenancies, and without which it was impossible that they could 
 pay the rents which were demanded." 
 
 My Lords, this movement spread over Limerick, 
 Tipperary, Waterford, and Cork, and afterwards to 
 Kilkenny and Queen's County, and there is a record — 
 a shocking record — of crime, even (strange as it may 
 seem to your Lordships) in more revolting forms and 
 in greater intensity than anything that has been sug- 
 gested or proved in this case. There were the levelling 
 of enclosures, wholesale crowds of threatening letters, 
 rescues of property seized for rent, grass lands ploughed 
 up, threats against any who paid more than the specified 
 amount of charge, no one allowed to bid for a vacant 
 farm unless it was vacant for at least five years, the 
 penalty being death or burning, the lioughing of cattle 
 to a large extent ; and you have thus an exact reproduc- 
 tion of the state of things complained of in this case, 
 and that, my Lords, at a time when there was no Land 
 League, no constitutional agitation of any shape or kind 
 on foot. This being the outcome of the action of this 
 secret body, and of those who were in sympathy with 
 Sir G. c. that secret body. Sir George Cornewall Lewis, in perhaps 
 the most important and most philosoj^hic inquiry into 
 the causes of Irish crime ever written, points to the 
 parallel which existed in 1761, and the subsequent years, 
 with the later period which he comes to consider, and 
 which brings us down to the date of his publication 
 in 1836. 
 
 The subsequent history of this crime I shall trace 
 to your Lordships in the history of the Parliamentary 
 Inquiries and of Eoyal Commissions. Your Lordships 
 probably know the name of Sir George Cornewall Lewis's 
 
 Lewis. 
 
I y HIS TOR Y OF A GRA RIA N CRIME 5 7 
 
 l)ook. It is called Causes of Irish Disturbance, j^ub- 
 lislicd in 183G. I shall have to refer to it later. Your 
 ]jordships will see how entirely uninstructed the 
 yVttorney- General was, how grievously misinstructed 
 the Attorney-General was, when he put before your 
 Lordships, as I have already intimated, the state of 
 things in 1871) and subsequent years as a new and 
 previously unknown state of things, disclosing a new 
 and previously unknown state and class of crime. I 
 shall presently call attention to figures to show how 
 vastly in excess of those of the present years were the 
 figures of crime at the time with which I am about to 
 deal. 
 
 Take the case of land -grabbing. Amongst the 
 things which was visited with the penalty of death and 
 burnino: was the takinof of an evicted farm, or land- 
 grabbing. Well, I do not know^ how far the Attorney- 
 General's historical researches have gone, but certainly 
 in very early and primitive states of society land- 
 gralibing was regarded as a crime by the com- 
 munity, and the reason is obvious. The reason is 
 particularly obvious in the case of a country like 
 Ireland. I am not at this moment doing anything 
 except examining the matter, so to say, historically and 
 philosophically. I am not stoi)ping to consider whether 
 justification, or palliation, or anything of that kind, can 
 be suggested. I am examining the facts, but the reason 
 is obvious why it sliould be regarded as a crime against 
 the interests of the community, because of course if 
 landlords, the moment a tenant was evicted from a farm, 
 could immediately get another tenant to take it, I need 
 not say it would be a great step towards making evic- 
 tions easy, and therefore tenants would lose, by the 
 removal of interposed difficulties in the way of actual 
 
58 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 evictions, the protection which they greatly relied upon 
 as lessening the evils to which they were exposed. 
 
 I do not want to trouble your Lordships with very 
 remote historical precedents, but there is the very cele- 
 brated and early case of land -grabbing of Ahab v. 
 Naboth, or Naboth v. Ahab. I confess, my Lords, that 
 I always thought that was an exceedingly mild case of 
 land-orabbino;, because, accordino- to authentic records. 
 iVhab first of all offered Naboth full value for his vine- 
 yard, and offered him an alternative vineyard as well 
 circumstanced in another place ; and yet so strong was 
 the reprehension at that period of the offence of land- 
 grabbing that the apparently fair proposals of Ahab did 
 not restrain Elijah the Tishbite from animadverting, 
 and animadverting most strongly, upon his conduct. 
 And through the whole history of the Irish question, 
 and in every community where the same need for self- 
 protection existed, you will find the reprehension and 
 condemnation of the community for acts of this kind — 
 acts considered by the community as detrimental to the 
 interests of the community. 
 Lecky. Mr. Lccky says, at page 340 of his fourth volume :— 
 
 " The trutli is that the real causes of the Wliiteboy outbreak 
 are to ]:)e fouud upon the surface ; extreme poverty, extreme ignor- 
 ance, extreme lawlessness, made tlie })eople wholly indillerent to 
 politics, but their condition was such that the slightest aggravation 
 made it intolerable, and it had become so miserable that they were 
 ready to resort to any violence in order to improve it." 
 
 And he cites the Knight of Kerry, writing at this 
 very period, the period which we are now considering. 
 " The lower orders," says the Knight of Kerry, " are 
 in a state of distress beyond anything known in the 
 memory of man." 
 
 My Lords, that was in the southern counties. In 
 
HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 59 
 
 the north two years hiter a violent outbreak of the 
 "Onkboys" occniTcd, wliich spread over and affected 
 the counties of Armagh, Tyrone, Londonderry, and 
 Fermanagh. And it arose from causes comparatively 
 trivial, as it would seem. It nrose from this cause, that 
 the magistrates, in the exercise of their powers as a 
 grand jury, to which some reference has been made in 
 the course of this case, had been using those powers to 
 their own direct and immediate advantage, and had 
 caused the making of roads for tlie improvement of their 
 own particular estates and domains, which were not for 
 the oeneral benefit, and the whole burthen and cost of 
 which it was sought to throw on tlie occupying peasants. 
 The people of the north rose against it. It was not so 
 formidable a movement, it was not so ferocious a move- 
 ment. Lord Charlemont, a man as well of distinction 
 as of ability, points out the cause of the difference 
 between the two movements in the north and south. 
 He points out how as regards the north a number of 
 circumstances, which I will not here dwell upon at 
 length, had given to the people a much better position, 
 a greater stake in the country than those in the south ; 
 how there had been preserved to the tenants in the 
 north in the shape of tenant right, a remnant of a much 
 greater interest in the land, which undoubtedly it was 
 the object of the great plantation settlement to give 
 til em ; how they had been free, or a great pi'oportion 
 of the community had been free, from the intolerable 
 persecutions Avliich liad characterised the south ; and in 
 ex})laining the difference between these movements 
 he uses this expressive language : " The rebellion of 
 slaves is always more bloody than an insurrection of 
 free men." My Lords, that was in 1763, 17G4, and 
 17G5. 
 
boys 
 
 60 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 In 1771 a much more important and a mucli more 
 formidable movement rose in the north, that is the 
 steel- movement of the " Steelboys," who were the prede- 
 cessors in title of the Orangemen of to-day. Tlie causes 
 again of their action are precisely the same ; the 
 chronicles of the period state them in almost identical 
 Language. Rents excessive, wholesale confiscation of 
 improvements, the putting up of farms and of liouses 
 to the highest bidder, without regard to the rights or 
 claims or interests of the ancient tenant, were the 
 immediate causes of the outburst and the formation of 
 that which became a formidable body, and which in its 
 later history, I am sorry to say, became sectarian in its 
 character, and not social as it originally was. So the 
 effect of this was that there was crime much more serious 
 than in the time of tlie Oakboys. They marched in 
 a body to release men, who had been taken up for crimes 
 committed, from the gaols of the town. The juries 
 which tried these men for various crimes accpiitted them 
 wholesale. They moved the venues to Dublin, and the 
 Dublin juries did the same. The immediate cause was 
 that one great landed nobleman in that neighbourhood, 
 namely, the Marquis of Donegal, had, upon a large 
 scale, endeavoured to forfeit the interest which the 
 tenants had in their homes. Mr. Lecky says in the 
 same volume, at page 347 : — "The improvements were 
 confiscated, land was turned into pasture, and the whole 
 population of a vast district were driven from their 
 homes." My Lords, the consequences of these particular 
 wholesale clearances were, unhappily, momentous. They 
 caused a large proportion of the emigration of the sturdy 
 Presbyterians of the north to America, and when the 
 War of Independence came, as the chronicles of that day 
 tell us, amongst the stoutest men in opposing the British 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 6r 
 
 forces, and in asserting American independence, were 
 these very expatriated Presbyterian farmers of tlie north 
 and tlieir children. From 1780 down to 180G a number 
 of political events, to which I have already referred, were 
 occurring, and as I have, I think, at least once pointed 
 out, in times of political movement, social oppression 
 and social grievances seem for the time to recede into 
 the background, and their existence at all events is not 
 made ap])arent by the presence of remarkable crime. 
 
 There had occurred in the interval the establishment 
 of G! rattan's Parliament as it has been styled, the 
 attempted rebellion of 1798, the inchoate rebellion of 
 Emmett in 1803 ; but from 180 G to 1820 again we have 
 the same thing repeated — in the west this time, as well 
 as in the south and also in the midland counties, the 
 Threshers in Connaught, the AVhitel)oys in the south "Tiircsh- 
 and ill the midland counties, and at that period there was "''■ 
 a remarkable depression in the agricultural interests in 
 Ireland, and severe pressure was felt. AVithout dwelling 
 too long upon the stoiy, it is true to say that in taking 
 the history of the century, of which we are now speak- 
 ing, there have been at least five periods during that 
 time, times of what would be regarded in this country 
 as destitution of the great mass of the people, and cer- 
 tainly two of absolute famine. 
 
 It is recorded that, owing to the high prices that had 
 prevailed, rents had enormously gone up, but in two 
 years, from causes not altogether easy now to trace, wheat, 
 at til is time one of the considerable products of the 
 country, Avhich in 1812 was worth £G a quarter, had fallen 
 in 1814, a period of two years, to £3 a quarter. 
 Pents were still maintained at a high standard and at a 
 higli pressure. Crime again arose, and was the subject 
 of the charges of judges to juries on criminal trials, and 
 
62 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 many lives were lost on the gallows, and many men were 
 lost by expatriation. In that year, or about that time, 
 the year 1814, one of the most remarkable judicial 
 pronouncements which probably ever was delivered from 
 Baiou any bench of justice was delivered by Mr. Baron Fletcher 
 ishV^' to the grand jury in the county of Wexford. Your 
 Lordships will find it reported at full length in the 
 Annual Register for the year 1814. He begins by con- 
 gratulating Wexford on its previous condition. He goes 
 on to consider the causes which had produced the 
 disturbances, which then prevailed throughout the 
 country, referring to the widespread appearance of those 
 disturbances, and pointing to his experience on the 
 north-western circuit, which included amongst others 
 the counties of Mayo, Donegal, Londonderry, and 
 Roscommon, and he says : — 
 
 "But various deep-rooted and neglected causes, producing 
 similar ett'ects throughout this country, have conspired to create the 
 evils which really and truly do exist. First, the extraordinary rise 
 of land occasioned l)y the great and increasing demand for the 
 necessaries of life, which by producing large profits to the possessors 
 of farms, excited a proportionate avidity for acquiring or renting 
 lands. Hence extravagant rents have been liid for hinds, without 
 any great consideration, and I have seen these two circumstances 
 operating upon each other like cause and effect — the cause pro- 
 ducing the effect, and the effect by reaction producing the cause." 
 
 He then goes on in a remarkable j^assage, which I do 
 not think it is pertinent to read in this connection, in 
 which he speaks of the action of the Orange Society as 
 poisoning the fountains of justice, and then he proceeds 
 as to the immediate and distinct causes of the distrust 
 of law, and the crime which prevailed, in a passage than 
 which I have never heard any more remarkable : — 
 
 " Gentlemen, that modern pittance which the high rents leave 
 to the poor peasantry the large county assessments nearly take 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 63 
 
 from them ; roads are frequently planned and made, not for the 
 general advantage of the country, but to suit the particular views 
 of a neighbouring landholder, at the public expense. Such abuses 
 shako the very foundation of the law ; they ought to be checked. 
 Superadded to these mischiefs are the permanent and occasional 
 a1)scntee landlords, residing in another countr^^ not known to their 
 tenantry but by their agents, who extract the uttermost penny of 
 the value of the lands. If a lease happen to fall, they set the farm 
 by public auction to the highest bidder. No gratitude for past ser- 
 vices, no preference of the fair offer, no predilection for the ancient 
 tenantry, be they ever so deserving, but, if the highest price be not 
 acceded to, the depopulation of an entire tract of country ensues. 
 JJ'haf, then, is fhr nretrhrd jjcnsant to do ? Chased from the spot where 
 he had first dravn his breath, ulicre he had first seen the light of heaven, 
 incajiahle of 2^1'ocuring any other means of existence, vexed icith tJiose 
 exactions I hare enumerated, and harassed hj the jmymcnt of tithes, 
 ran we be siirprised that a, jicasant of unenlightened mind, of uneducated 
 habits, shoidd rush upnn the perpetration of crimes, followed hy the p)un- 
 ishment of the rope and the gibbet? Nothing {as the peasantry imagine) 
 remains for them, this harassed and thus dcstiiute, hut with strong hand 
 to di't'T the stranger from intruding iipon their farms, and to extort 
 from, the ivcaJcness and terrors of their landlords (from whose gratitude or 
 good feelings they have failed to ivin it) a kind of preference for their 
 ancient tenantry." 
 
 There is a great deal more of this wliich is worth 
 reading. lie proceeds to dwell upon what amounts to a 
 charge on tlie grand jury of fraud, enlarging the charges 
 wliich I Ikia'c already mentioned. He points out that 
 " Ribbonism," which then began to show its head, was"Pdbbon- 
 tlie product of ojipression. He then proceeds to point 
 out how, not content with the extraction of the utmost 
 farthing of rent, these absentee landlords through their 
 agents (ilaim the political power which the tenant, as a 
 voter, had at his command as part of the price wliich he 
 has to pay for his holding, and he says : — 
 
 "The tenantry arc driven to the hustings, and there, collected 
 like sheep in a pen, they must poll for the great undertaker who 
 
6.1 NIS TJS! } ' OF A J}:A J^IA X CRDfE iv 
 
 has purchased them by his jobs ; and this is frequently done with 
 little regard to conscience or duty, or real value for the alleged free- 
 hold. ' ^ 
 
 Then lie proceeds to deal at greater length with the 
 results of the fact that so large a class of the Irish land- 
 holders are absentees. I will not dwell npou that pas- 
 sasre. Then he proceeds to consider the qiiestion : Is 
 there no remedv for all this except the remedy of coer- 
 cive legislation ? I will show your Lordships in a 
 moment that durius: the whole of rhis time there is a 
 continual and dismal record of coercive measure after 
 coercive measure, with hardly a years intermission, for 
 a hundred years. 
 
 He then proceeds, in a passage which your Lordships 
 wiU forgive my reading, as it will a little lighten the 
 more serious part of what I have to say, to point out 
 how difficult it is for the English mind, which he recog- 
 nised in the pohtieal relations between the two countries 
 as reallv the goveminsf mind of the matter, to ijet hold 
 of reliable information, and in a positively humorous pass- 
 age he describes the course of an intelligent English visitor 
 who is coming to learn the truth for himself. He says : — 
 
 "Does a visitor come to Ireland to compile a book of travels, 
 what is his course I He is handed about from one country gentle- 
 man to another, all interested in concealing from him the true state 
 of the country ; he passes from squire to squire, each rivalling the 
 other in entertaining their guest, all busy in pouring falsehoods into 
 his ears touching the disturbed state of the country and the>icious 
 habits of the people. Such is the crusade of information upon 
 which the EngHsh traveller sets forward ; and he returns to his own 
 country with all his unfortunate prejudices doubled and confirmed, 
 in a kind of moral despair of the welfare of such a wicked race, 
 having made up his mind that nothing ought to be done for this 
 lawless and degraded country.'"' 
 
 I have said that I will point out what was the nature 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 65 
 
 of tlie coercive measures, as for convenience sake and 
 l)rcvity's sake tliey are called, in existence at this period. 
 In 1800 there was in existence the Insurrection Act, the 
 Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, and, during a part of 
 the period, martial law. The same in 1801. In 1803 
 there was the Insurrection Act. In 1804 there was the 
 Plabeas Corpus Suspension Act. In 1807 and 1808 the 
 Insurrection Act and martial law, and the Habeas 
 Corpus Suspension Act. In 1809 and 1810 the same. 
 In 1814, 1815, 181G, and 1817 the same. In 1822, 
 1823, and 1824 the same. 
 
 I now pass on, although there are one or two inter- sir g. c. 
 vening incidents that I might dwell uj^on, and I take up ""'^' 
 at this point, namely, from the years 1824 to 1825, the 
 best, the most reliable, the most philosophic inquiry that 
 I have come across into the causes of Irish crime — I 
 mean Sir C4eoro;e Cornewall Lewis's book. If vour Lord- 
 shij)S are not familiar with it, and have not got it, I 
 should be very glad to be allowed to hand it up. 
 
 It is the work of a man eminently fitted for the 
 task he undertakes ; a scholar, a statesman, a man of 
 eminentlv fair and judicial mind ; and. my Lords, while 
 I make an apology for the length at which I refer to 
 this, I will promise that I will not trouble your Lord- 
 sliips with any other authorities that I refer to at any- 
 thing like the same length. The book was published in 
 183G, and practically takes up the whole field of inquiry, 
 lieginning with a parliamentary inquiry by a Select 
 Committee in the year 1824, so that it covers altogether 
 a period of twelve years. He proceeds to consider the 
 question under these heads : — 
 
 " The causes of Irish Disturbance ; their chai'acter and objects : 
 tlie means used for accomplishing these objects : and the eflects 
 produced by them." 
 
 F 
 
66 HISTORY OF AGRARIAX CRIME iv 
 
 Sir G. c. Xow at page 46 lie points out the causes of disturb- 
 
 Causes of ances in Ireland, and says : — 
 
 Crime. 
 
 "According to the prevailing system, which has to a greater or 
 
 less extent been acted upon neai-ly up to the present day, every 
 Irish Catholic was presumed to be disaffected to the State, and was 
 treated as an open or concealed rebel; the entire government wiis 
 carried on by the Protestant.-?, and for their benefit, and the Pro- 
 testants were considered the only link between England and Ii-eland. 
 The English thought it for their interest that Ireland should belong 
 to them, and they supported the Irish Protestants in oppressing the 
 Irish Catholics, who, it was assumed, without that oppression would 
 throw themselves into the arms of France. At the same time that 
 the wide and impassable line was dra^\Ti by the law between the 
 two religions in Ireland, and the one persuasion was made a privi- 
 leged, the other an inferior, class, the whole of Ireland Avas treated 
 as a province or colony, whose interests were to be sacrified to those 
 of the mother country." 
 
 And then at page 49 he elaborates that point and 
 says : — "• In these two ways '"' — that is to say. the land- 
 lords being few in proportion, and to a large extent 
 Englishmen, and to a still larger extent not professing 
 the religion of the great majority of the Irish people, 
 being Protestants — 
 
 "In these two ways all friendly connection between the landlord 
 and tenant of the soil was broken ; either the landlord was at a 
 distance and was represented by an oppressive, giasping middle- 
 man, or, if on the spot, he was the member of a dominant and 
 privileged class, who was as much bound by his official ties as he 
 was prompted by the opinion of his order, by the love of power, 
 and by the feeling of irresponsibility, to oppress, degrade, and 
 trample on his Catholic tenants." 
 
 Hence it was impossible that the different classes of 
 society should be shaded into one another, that the rich 
 should pass into the poor by that insensible gradation 
 which is found in England, or that those amicable rela- 
 tions should ever be formed between landlord and tenant 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 67 
 
 which (with temporary and partial exceptions) have sub- sir g. c. 
 sisted for some centuries in the latter country, to its causes of 
 great and manifest advantage. The sharp separation ^"'"®- 
 of the upper and lower ranks, the degradation of the 
 peasantry, their ignorance, tlieii* poverty, their reckless- 
 ness, and their turbulence were as necessarily the con- 
 sequence of tlie system pursued in Ireland as the com- 
 parative comfort of the laljourer, the occupation of the 
 laud l)y a respectable tenantry, the general tranquillity 
 of the ngricultural population, and the gradual passage 
 of tlic richer into the poorer ranks were tlie consequences 
 of the system pursued in England. And any person 
 who liad attentively studied the state of society in 
 England and Ireland at the opening of the eighteenth 
 century might, without any remarkable gift of political 
 prophecy, or without hazarding any rash conjecture, have 
 foretold the respective destinies of the agricultural 
 population in either country. 
 
 My Lords, he then refers to Arthur Young, who 
 towards the end of the eio-hteenth centurv visited 
 Ireland, and who gives proof of a deeper, darker kind 
 still than I care to advert to, of the degradation to 
 which the wives and daughters of the Irish tenants were 
 subjected as part of this pernicious system. He goes 
 on : — 
 
 "The landlord of an Irish estate inhabited by Roman Catholics 
 is a sort of despot, who 3"ields obedience, in whatever concerns the 
 l)oor to no law but that of his will."' 
 
 The following, my Lords, is indeed a philosophical 
 ol)servation worth l)earing in mind in the progress of 
 this case, and at every part of it. 
 
 " To discover what the liberty of a people is we must live 
 among them, and not look for it among the statutes of the realm : 
 
68 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 Sir G. C. the language of written law may be that of liberty, but the situa- 
 Lewis. ^JQ^ Qf |.j^g pQOp n^ay speak no language but that of slavery. There 
 Crime. is too much of this contradiction in Ireland ; a long series of oppres- 
 sions, aided by many very ill-judged laws, have brought landlords 
 into a habit of exerting a very lofty superiority, and their vassals 
 into that of an almost unlimited submission ; speaking a language 
 that is despised, professing a religion that is abhorred, and being 
 disarmed, the poor find themselves in many cases slaves even in the 
 bosom of a written liberty." 
 
 My liOrds, let me here observe that, although I do 
 not mean to suggest that there have not been in opera- 
 tion causes outside the law which have mitigated the 
 ferocity of this landlord system in Ireland, I do main- 
 tain, and I hope I shall demonstrate to your Lordships, 
 that until the year 1881, and then as one of the products 
 and fruits of the very revolution your Lordships are 
 trying, there was no real or effective check imposed by 
 the law upon landlord oppression. 
 
 He then again proceeds to cite the evidence, which I 
 will not do in great detail, taken before a committee as 
 to the causes of crime. My Lords, this was a committee 
 which was appointed in 1824, and afterwards became a 
 committee of both Houses of Parliament, and which 
 pjractically sat for a number of years, and I think finally 
 made its report, I am not quite sure of the date, but I 
 think somewhere about 1826 or 1827. He refers to 
 one witness who was one of the barristers appointed to 
 administer the Insurrection Act in 1822, and who assigned 
 distress as one of the causes of the state of thiuos in 
 
 O 
 
 Ireland, and he was then asked by some member of the 
 committee, " Have you ever directed your attention to 
 the ultimate causes of it % " to which the witness 
 answered : "The ultimate causes must be sought much 
 further back in the history of the country." 
 
 Then, my Lords, he proceeds to give his reasons 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 69 
 
 hearing on this head, wliich I shall have to trouble you sir g. c. 
 witli, though at a later stage, when 1 come to put JjJJ^g; ^j 
 before you the history of the details of the land legisla- ^'"™^- 
 tion j-elatino; to Ireland. Then he refers to the evidence 
 of an inspector of police, who is asked : — 
 
 " To what do you attribute the long disturbance you have de- 
 scribed as ])rcvailing among the lower orders in that part of the 
 country (Munster) % " and he answers : " It is very difficult for me 
 to form an opinion, it arises from so many causes. I think a great 
 deal of disturbance has arisen about the rents ; the land during the 
 war was set ver}^ high in most parts of Ireland, and in peace there 
 Avas a great reduction in the price of produce, a most considerable 
 reduction in Ireland, and I think that the landlords were proceed- 
 ing to distress the tenantr^^ and to get those high rents which the 
 produce of the land did not enable them to pay, and I think that 
 that caused a nundjcr of persons to be turned out of their farms, 
 luid from thnt arose a nund)er of outrages from the dispossessed 
 tenants." 
 
 Mr. Justice Day, judge of the Court of liing's 
 Bench in Ireland, whose tenure of the judicial bench 
 appears to have been twenty -one years, is asked a 
 question u]3on the same subject, and in reference to his 
 circuit experience he points as an example to one case 
 in the county of Limerick, upon the estate of one Lord 
 (■ourtcnay. There was a good deal of oppression 
 and disturbance in consequence, into which he goes at 
 some little length. 
 
 Then another witness says — I will not trouble your 
 Lordships by repeating the same thing, but he gives 
 tlie same causes, " the jirinie one always being the rent 
 and tithe, and other charges on the land, which it w^as 
 utterly impossible to pay. The people could not pay 
 anything like the demands." All through 1 find the 
 same keyn(^te. 
 
 Tlicn there arc one or two questions in this con- 
 
Crime. 
 
 70 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 Sir G. c. nection, although it will come a little later in the 
 Causes of secoiicl hcacl that he mentions. One is asked at page 
 73:— 
 
 " What was the object of some of these movements % From 
 the history of the disturbance it appears that it originated in the 
 conduct of a gentleman on the • Courtenay estate. He Avas very 
 severe towards the tenants, and the people Avho were in wealth 
 previous to that were reduced to poverty, and they thought proper 
 to retaliate upon him and his famil)^" 
 
 I ask the Attorney-Generars attention to this : — 
 
 " And upon those who took their lands, and this was the origin 
 of it." 
 
 When Mr. Leslie Foster, at that time a member of 
 Parliament, is asked his opinion, and to what he attri- 
 buted the frequent recurrence of disturbances, he says : — 
 
 "I think the proximate cause is the extreme physical miser}' 
 of the peasantry, coupled with their liability to be called upon for 
 the payment of difterent charges, Avhich it is often practically 
 impossible for them to meet. The immediate cause of those dis- 
 turbances I conceive to be the attempt to enforce these demands 
 by the various processes of law ; we are also to take into considera- 
 tion that they are living under constitutions for which they have 
 neither much aifection nor much respect. I have assigned what I 
 conceive to be the proximate cause of the distiu'bance. I thiidc the 
 remote one is a radically vicious structure of society which prevails 
 in many parts of Ireland, and which has originated in the events of 
 Irish history, and Avhich may be in a great measure palliated, but 
 which it would, I fear, be extremely difficult now wholly to change." 
 
 Then a stipendiary magistrate of experience in 
 Queen's County is asked : — 
 
 " Are the Committee to understand that you consider the spirit 
 of outrages has not been got under]" — "It has not." — "Can you give 
 any hint to the Committee as to Avhat you consider likely to accom- 
 plish that desirable object?" — "I think if the laws were amended in 
 one, two, or three instances which I will suggest, it would tend to 
 the security of the public peace. There is scarcely an outrage com- 
 mitted relative to land but what the people assign a cause for it ; 
 
I V HIS TOR V OF A GRA RIA N CRIME 7 1 
 
 if I may use that expression, in some instances the unfortunate Sir G. c. 
 people do show a cause for it." Lewis. 
 
 Causes of 
 
 ]\[r. Blackburne was examined, who was Chief ^"'"^' 
 Justice of the Queen's Bench, as your Lor(lshi23S may 
 prol)a])ly recollect, and afterwards Lord Chancellor of 
 Ireland, and in introducing his name at page 78, Sir 
 George Corn e wall Lewis sums up a portion of the case 
 included in his evidence. lie says : — 
 
 " All the above 'witnesses agree in a remarkable manner with 
 rcgnrd to tlie causes of the Whiteboy disturbances. All trace them 
 to the miserable condition of the pcasantrj' — to their liability to 
 certain charges, the chief of which is rent, which they are verj^ 
 often unal)le to meet — and to their anxiety to retain possession of 
 land, which, as JNIr. Blackburne truly states, is to them a necessary 
 of life, the alternative being starvation. AVith the dread of this 
 alternative before their eyes it is not," says Sir George Lewis, "to 
 1)0 wondered that they make des})erate efl'urts to avert it — that 
 crime and disturbance should be the consequence of actual eject- 
 ment is still more natural." 
 
 And, by the way, Mr. Blackburne mentions one case 
 on the estate of Lord Stradbroke, wdiere, he says : — 
 
 "The agent, attended by tlie sheriff, went upon the land and 
 dispossessed a numerous body of occupants ; they prostrated the 
 houses, leaving the people to carry away the timber. The number 
 of persons that were thus dei)rived of their houses on that occasion 
 was very large. I am sure that there were about forty families, 
 but I cannot tell you the number of individuals. They were per- 
 sons of all ages and sexes, and, in particular, a woman almost in 
 the extremity of death." And then the question follows, "What 
 do you conceive became of them % " and the answer is : "I should 
 think they have been received from charity up and down the 
 country." 
 
 Mr. Barrington, a gentleman who appears to have 
 had a very long official life, because I find the same 
 gentleman — I think it is the same gentleman — turning 
 up as a witness at another of these perennial commis- 
 
HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 
 
 Sir G. c. sions to inquire into the Ccauses of Irish crime in the 
 
 Lewis. •11 1 
 
 Causes of year 1852. lie agrees with the general comment upon 
 the lamentable condition which Sir George Lewis points 
 out, and which is summed up by him at page 88 : — 
 
 " There is so much permanent misery in the southern and 
 western parts of Ireland, the mass of the county population are in 
 such a state of distress and sufi'ering, they have so little either to 
 hope or to fear, that they are ready at almost any time to break 
 out into disturbance, in order, if not to rebel, at least to weaken 
 that law Avhich they have always been accustomed to consider as 
 their enemy." 
 
 And he makes one very curious comment upon a sug- 
 gestion which has been made in the course of this case, 
 when the question was addressed earlier by one of my 
 friends, that there is a degree of wretchedness in which 
 the people have been so completely prostrated that 
 crime is not found to 1)e rancorous amongst them. "Do 
 you think it reasonaljle to expect perfect tranquillity ?" is 
 the c[uestion put to Colonel Kochfort — "Do you think 
 it reasonable to expect perfect tranquillity in Ireland 
 when there is such a state of wretchedness, and the 
 people so badly clad, fed, and housed ? " What is the 
 answer ? " My abstract opinion is, the lower in the 
 scale of society the populace is, the more sure you are of 
 its obedience." Then the question is put : "In order to 
 keep the country quiet you would keep the country 
 wretched ? " And the answer is : "I would not keep it 
 so, but I think it would secure the tranquillity of the 
 country." And then Sir George Come wall Lewis upon 
 that observes : — 
 
 " The disturbances in question appear to prevail most wliere the 
 peasantry are bold and robust, and one degree removed alcove tlie 
 lowest poverty, and where the land is productive and consequently 
 thickly peopled." 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME -j^ 
 
 My Lords, Sir George Cornewall Lewis was writing sir g. c. 
 l>efore the years of the famine — he was writing l^efore the causes of 
 enormous clearances tliat liave taken place in the present *^'^""''' 
 century — clearances starting principally from the famine 
 time, not beoinnino;, but startino; in increased volume 
 during the famine time, when the landlords, just as dis- 
 tress increased, increased in their urgency of legal process, 
 ;is it will l)e shown to your Lordships tliey did in 1879, 
 1880, 1881, niid 1882. He th en cites another authority 
 upon tliis subject, and a very valuable one, an English 
 liistorian, Wakefield, in his account of Ireland. This is 
 upon another point. In his first volume Wakefield 
 says, at page 244 : — 
 
 " III Ireland landlords never erect buildings on tlieir property, 
 or expend anything in repairs ; nor do leases in that country con- 
 tnin so many clauses as in England. The office of an agent is thus 
 r(Miderod very easy, for he hns nothing to do but to receive his 
 employers' rents twice a 3'car, and to set out the turf-bog in lots in 
 the spring." 
 
 That is, of course, upon a point with which I am not 
 now directly dealing. 
 
 ]\[y Lords, 1 leave tlie consideration of the causes of 
 Irish agrarian crime, which really means the causes of 
 Irisli crime. 
 
 The next point wliicli Sir G. C. Lewis proceeds to con- 
 sider are the character and ol;)jects of that crime, and this ciiaracter 
 will, I think, be found to be veiy important. He says : — ° 
 
 " In order to comju'ehend the peculiar character of the offences 
 springing from the Whitelioy system in Ireland, it is desiiable to 
 consider all crimes as divided into two classes, not according to the 
 ordinary distinction of crimes against the person and crimes against 
 property, 1;)ut with reference to the motive Avith which they are 
 conunitted, or the clTcct which they are intended to produce." 
 (That is at i)nge 94, third cliai)ter.) "Under one class maybe 
 arranged those crimes which are intended to intimidate, to deter- 
 
74 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 Sir G. C. mine men's wills, to produce a general effect not necessarily even 
 Lewis. limited to the individual whose person or property is the olnect of 
 of Crime, the crime, but at any rate calculated to influence his conduct in 
 respect of some future action. Such are threatening notices, 
 malicious injury to property, beatings, murders, etc., in consequence 
 of some act of the party injurious to a particular })erson, or to 
 classes of persons. The object of these is either directly to prevent 
 or to compel the performance of some future act, which a specified 
 individual is supposed to be likely to perform or not to perform ; as 
 Avhen a man is threatened, either orally or by a written notice, that 
 he will be killed if ho ejects or admits such a tenant, if he dismisses 
 or does not dismiss such a servant, if ho prosecutes or gives 
 evidence against such a party ; or, secondly, it is to punish a party 
 for having done some act." 
 
 And then he proceeds to enumerate in the same way 
 cases in which a man is threatened because he has rejected 
 or admitted such a tenant, because he has not dismissed 
 or has dismissed such a servant, because he has prosecuted 
 or given evidence against such a party. Then he points 
 out the motive of the crimes tliat lie is considerinu'. 
 
 o 
 
 " In this character " (he says) " they look not merely to parti- 
 cular, but also to general results ; not merely to the present, l)ut 
 also to the future ; not merely to themselves, but also to those with 
 whom they are leagued and with whom they have an identity of 
 interests. The, criminal who ads with these views is, as it tuere, an 
 executioner who carries into effect the verdict of an uncertain and non- 
 apparent trihinal ; and it usually happens that others pro/it more hij his 
 offence than he himself tvho committed it. To the other class may be 
 referred those crimes whose effect is limited to that which is 
 actually done by the ofi'onder." 
 
 I will not trouble your Lordships by pursuing that 
 passage ; but I do ask attention to the fact how ill 
 this historical record fits in with the statement of the 
 case which the Attorney-General, upon what I must 
 designate most imperfect instructions, put before your 
 Lordships. We have here the very same class of 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 75 
 
 tilings, carried out ia the very same way, apparently sir g. c. 
 witli the very same class of object. Then he proceeds : — character 
 
 of Crime. 
 " Now, the characteristic difference between tlie crimes of 
 
 Ireland and of England, France, and indeed of almost every civilised 
 
 country in the world, is, that in a large part of Ireland the former 
 
 class appears to preponderate considerably beyond the latter." 
 
 That is to say, the class iu which the offence is com- 
 mitted, not to revenge a wrong done upon the individual 
 committing it by nn individual who has committed it, 
 but in the sense which Sir George Cornewall Lewis sub- 
 se<piently explained, namely, the protective sense. Then 
 he continues : — 
 
 " The preponderance of the exemplary or preventive crimes " 
 (which is another term he applies) " may be particularly seen in 
 certain districts of Ireland. Thus in Munster, in the year 1833, 
 illegal notices, administering unlawful oaths, assaults connected 
 with combination, attacks on houses, burnings, maiming of cattle, 
 malicious injury to property, and appearing in arms, nearly all of 
 Avhich were of this description, comprehended 627 out of a total of 
 973 crimes, and even of the others, homicides, etc., many were 
 doubtless committed with the same motive. ... It is to the 
 state of things which we exhibited in the last chapter, to the 
 wretched condition of the mass of the Irish peasantry, their inability 
 to obtain employment for hire, and their consequent dependence on 
 land, to the system of combination and self-defence thus engen- 
 dered, in short, to the prevalence of the Whitcboy spirit, that this 
 peculiar character of Irish crimes is to be atttilmted. It has 
 already been explained how the Irish peasant, con.stantly living in 
 extreme poverty, is liable, by the pressure of certain charges, or by 
 ejectment from his holding, to bo driven to utt( r destitution, to 
 a state in Avhich himself and fannly can only rely on a most pre- 
 carious charity to save them from exposure to tho elements, from 
 nakedness, and from starvation. It is natural that the most im- 
 provident persons should seek to struggle against such fearful 
 consequences as these, that they should try to us(! some means of 
 quieting a])prchensions which (even if never realised) would them- 
 selves be suilicicntto cmliittcr tho life of the most tlioughtlcss ; and 
 
76 
 
 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 
 
 Sir G. C. 
 Lewis. 
 Oliaracter 
 of Crime. 
 
 Classifica- 
 tion of 
 I 'rimes. 
 
 it is to aftord this security that the Whiteboy combinations are 
 formed." 
 
 Then he proceeds to use this language, more than 
 once quoted, but certainly remarkaljle : — 
 
 " The, WMtehoy Association may he considered as a vast trades nnion 
 for the protection of the Irish peasantry ; the ohjed being, not to regulaie the 
 rate of wages or the hours of ivork, hut to keej) the actual occujjaid iaposses- 
 sion of his land, and in general to regidate the relation of landlord and 
 tenant for the henefit of the latter. . . . That the main object of the 
 Whiteboy disturlnuices is to keep the actual tenant in undisturl)ed 
 possession of his hokling, and to cause it to be transferred at his death 
 to his family, by preventing and punishing ejectment and the taking 
 of land over another's head" [which is land-grabbing], " is proved 
 by a whole body of testimony. A secondary, but not unfrequent 
 object is to regulate the rate of wages by i)reventing tlie employ- 
 ment of strangers, or by requiring liigher payment from the farmers. 
 The Whiteboys of late years have rarely interfered with the collection 
 of tithe, which was at one time their priucii)al ol)ject of attack." 
 
 Now, my Lords, he gives at this point a classifica- 
 tion of the crimes then prevalent. It reads like a record 
 of the crimes your Lordships have been inquiring into — 
 crimes which the Attorney- General was instructed to 
 say were previously unknown : — 
 
 " To force the party to quit land in his occupation. To avenge 
 the taking of land. To force the party not to eject tenants, or to 
 punish him for ejecting them. To force the party not to take 
 land. To force the party not to let land to certain persons. To 
 force the party to let land to certain persons. To force the i)arty 
 to let land at a certain rate. To prevent the party from recovering 
 possession of a house. To force the party not to pay more than 
 half a year's rent. To force the party to quit his service. To force 
 the party not to employ or to punish him for employing certain 
 persons. To punish for discharging from his employment. To 
 prevent persons working under a certain rate of "wages. To pre- 
 vent or avenge the collection of rent, tithes, or county cess, or the 
 taking of legal measures to enforce payment of them. To rescue 
 parties arrested. To prevent the party giving information to the 
 military. To prevent the execution of a warrant ; " 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 77 
 
 aud so on, and so on. It is a classification of many sir g. c. 
 offences wliicli have been proved to liave existed in cSiica- 
 tliis case. Tliere is an answer at paQ-e 109 by the Rev. J:;°" °f 
 Nichohis O'Connor, one of the witnesses examined, 
 wldch is not without significance. It is asked — 
 
 " What are the principal objects they have in view ] — To keep 
 themselves \\\)o\\ tlieir lands. I have often heard their conversa- 
 tions when they say, ' What good did the emancipation do us ? 
 Are we better clotlied or fed, or our children better clothed and 
 fed 1 Arc we not as naked as we were, and eating dry potatoes 
 when wc can got tiieni 1 Let us notice the farmers to give us 
 better food and better wages, and not give so much to the landlord 
 and more to the workman. We must not let them be turning the 
 poor people off the ground.' Then some of them that Avent to 
 England and saw the way the English labourers are fed and 
 clothed, came back and told them : 'If you saw the way that the 
 J*]nglish labourers lived, you would never live as you do ; ' and 
 some ])ersons from another part of the country told them that they 
 managed things a great deal better ; that the way ' was to swear 
 to be true to each other, and join to keep the people upon their 
 ground, and not let the landlords be turning them off;' then it is 
 proposed that they should meet at some shebeen house, of which 
 there are too many, unfortunately, in the country, or some licensed 
 house of low description Avhere they get drunk and become de- 
 moralised, and thus the}' are seduced into the Whiteboy system." 
 
 My Lords, I recollect a conversation, publicly quoted 
 some years ago, winch made a deep impression upon me, 
 for I knew the conversation had taken place as it was 
 reported. A peasant in the south of Ireland in the 
 year 1881, complaining of his hard lot and of the ex- 
 actions and raisings of rent which had been put upon 
 him by his landlord, whose name I will not mention, 
 was bidden to be of good hope, that there had been 
 promise of land reform and protection for the Irish 
 tenant. The man's answer was very significant. He 
 said : — 
 
78 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 sirG. C. "I believe Government me;ui Avell, but," he said, "tlio people 
 
 ';f^"'^- have clone more for tliemselves than the Covernment will do for 
 
 Uou of them. I am told that down Tipperary way (this man was a 
 
 ( 'nine. Kerry man) " the landlords were at one time the worst in Ireland, 
 
 and some of them got badly hurt, God help them, and now they 
 
 tell me that the landlords of Tipperary are as good as any of the 
 
 landlords in the rest of Ireland." 
 
 My Lords, that is a sad spirit to have got hold of 
 the people, looking to themselves and to such means, 
 not to the Government of the country and the Legisla- 
 ture of the land, for the redress of grievances. There 
 are many other things in this interesting book tliat I 
 would have desired to call attention to, but I have so 
 much to say that I cannot dwell on it as long as I 
 should otherwise desire to do. My attention is called 
 to page 111. Very much the same thing has been said 
 by Mr. Bennett, speaking of other counties, Kildare and 
 Queen's County. 
 
 "The character of crime appeared to me to result from a con- 
 spiracy to prevent any person from taking land, or from possessing 
 land from Avhich the previous tenant had been ejected for rent, and 
 threatening strangers of every description from coming into thu 
 country ; also particularly directed against Avitnesses who either 
 have come forward, or it was apprehended would come forward to 
 give evidence upon criminal prosecutions, or with res[)ect to land ; 
 that was the impression that was made iipon my mind from the 
 evidence I received." 
 
 My Lords, to the classification of crime I have 
 already referred. I should like now to call your Lord- 
 Figure? as ships' attention to the quantity of crime referred to. 
 Now, you will see, sad and regrettable as is the state 
 of crime which you have l^een inquiring into for a 
 period of ten years — many of those years, years of 
 dire distress, as your Lordships will have demonstrated 
 to you — how slight that crime is compared with the 
 
 to Crime. 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 79 
 
 jieriod I am now upon. The particular table I have is 
 the year 1833. "Riots in Ulster, 340." It appears 
 that figure ought to be corrected, because a note says 
 tlmt in one of the districts of that province included 
 under the head of riots are assaults. That, of course, 
 is unimportant for what I am upon. 
 
 " Iti Lciiistcr, 94 ; in ]\[uiister, 4G ; in Coimaught, 59 : total 
 for that year of riots, 539. Jicscne and resistance to legal pro- 
 cess : Ulster, 127; Leinster, 41; Munster, 48; Connauglit, 22G : 
 total, 442, for the year 1833. Illegal meetings: Ulster, 83; 
 Leinster, 128; Mnnster, G; Connanglit, G4 : total, 281." 
 
 Then there are " notices," which I do not trouble your 
 Lordships with. 
 
 "Administering nnlawful oaths,'' total, 1G7. "Appearing in 
 arms," total, 145. "Robbery or demand of arms, 393. Assanlts 
 connected with combination, 926. Attacks on houses, 1325. 
 ]5nrnings, 489. Maiming or destroying cattle, 271. Malicious 
 injury to property, 890. Homicides: Ulster, 45 ; Leinster, 56; 
 JMunster, 80; Connaught, 57 : total, 237," in the one year 1883 ! 
 " Firing at persons " (this was at the beginning of the tithe war), 
 total, 237. " Cutting and maiming, 31." 
 
 Then "burglary" I need not trouble your Lordships 
 with, nor the others, making as the grand total of all 
 crimes for that year the enormous number of 9943 
 offences. 
 
 Now, I tliink I am justified in saying that, so far, 
 I have shown, in a condition of things in many 
 respects far below the intensity and pressure upon 
 the great body of the population which existed in 
 1879, when the people had no open organisation, a state 
 of crime much worse than anything that can be sug- 
 gested as having existed in the worst years since 1878 ; 
 and I hope to make it apparent to your Lordships that, 
 although it may be suggested (that I will hereafter deal 
 
8o HIS TOR Y OF A GRA RIA N CRIME i v 
 
 with) that the Land League exercised an oppression and 
 a tyranny of its own, yet I say it is demonstrable that, 
 just in proportion as it was eftective in these results, 
 which will he alleged to have exercised a certain petty 
 tyranny or pressure, it had the effect of lessening so 
 far from increasing serious crime. And it seems 
 to me that the consideration of the case makes it 
 apparent that that must be so, because if you have got, 
 focussed, the expression of the opinion of a largely pre- 
 ponderating class in tlie connnunity in condemnation of 
 a particular line of conduct supposed to be inimical to 
 the general interests of the community, whether it takes 
 the form of boycotting, or what you please, it is perfectly 
 obvious that in proportion as that force is effective, it 
 must tend not to increase but to diminish weighty 
 crime. You may say that is itself crime. I will deal 
 with that hereafter. You may say that boycotting is 
 crime and a relentless form of tyranny. I shall 
 examine that presently, but I say it is demonstrable 
 that, just in proportion as there is a focussing of the 
 public opinion in the localities and throughout the 
 country, it must have the result of lessening serious 
 crime. 
 Tithe War, The titlic War began in 1830, and it to some extent 
 overlaps the period Sir George Cornewall Lewis refers 
 to. It includes the year 1833, the statistics of which 
 he gave us. It continued witli (what shall I call it^) 
 great force until the year 1835, when one of the few 
 statesmen charged with the conduct of public affairs 
 in Ireland who ever showed a comprehension of his 
 position and of the state of things in Ireland — I mean 
 Thomas Drummond — succeeded to the Irish Office as 
 Under-Secretary, and took a bold and resolute step 
 — a step difficult perhaps to justify upon narrow tech- 
 
I V HIS TOR V OF A GRA RIA N CRIME 8 1 
 
 iiical legal grounds, because the tithe farmers and the 
 tithe owners had the right to their pound of flesh, and 
 they had a right to invoke in aid the civil authority ; 
 they had a right to invoke the executive forces of the 
 Crown in assertion of those rights. Thomas Drummond 
 refused them that help ; and from 1835 until finally the 
 Tithe Actwas passed in 1839, there was comparative peace 
 in Ireland in the matter. Boycotting existed ; all the 
 evils which are here referred to, as Sir George Cornewall 
 Lewis's book shows, existed in a marked degree. Men 
 were ordered out of particulor employments of obnoxious 
 persons who would not yield to the suggestions or the 
 behests of the anti-tithe organisers, and in this connec- 
 tion I will quote from a book, which is the only work 
 of any historian that I shall have occasion to refer to 
 who mny be said to be in symj)athy with the defend- 
 ants here accused ; but he quotes his authorities, and 
 I refer to his book because I find them conveniently 
 collected there — I mean the book of my learned and 
 aljle friend Mr, Barry O'Brien, entitled Fifty Years of Bixrry 
 Concessions to Ireland. I am reading from the first 
 volume. lie gives an instance of the mode in which the 
 attempts at seizures for tithes were resisted, and at page 
 397 he gives this instance of the way in which those public 
 sales were treated. Notices were put w]) to this effect : — 
 
 "(1) It is i'e(iuestc(l that no auctioneer Avill lend himself to the 
 sale of cows distrained for tithes. (2) It is requested that no 
 person will purchase cows distrained for tithes. (3) It is resolved, 
 that the citizens will have no intercourse or dealings with any 
 person wdio aids in the sale of the cows as auctioneer or purchaser." 
 
 The result was there were no sales. He then goes on to 
 describe a scene which has a humorous asjDect. The anti- 
 tithe organisers of Dublin caused notices to be served 
 on five leading persons in their community, calling upon 
 
 G 
 
HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 
 
 them not to pay tithes. These five persons were Lord 
 Cloncurry, Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Bourne, Mr. Bcagot, and 
 Mr. Graydon. The notices were disregarded, and orders 
 were then issued directing their servants and labourers 
 to leave the employment of those gentlemen. These 
 orders were instantly obeyed. A meeting was next held 
 in the neighbourhood where these gentlemen lived, and 
 they were all summoned to attend the meeting and 
 explain their conduct in disobeying the injunction. 
 Graydon, Armstrong, Bourne, and Bagot, I believe, all, 
 after an interval, came in and said they would not pay 
 tithe any more. The question was asked by the chair- 
 man, Mr. Ncill, where was Lord Cloncurry ? An answer 
 came that his lordship was not there, but that he had 
 sent a number of labourers in his employ to represent 
 him. The chairman said : " What have you got to say ? 
 Why did Lord Cloncurry pay the tithe ? " — " He did not 
 pay it," said the spokesman, " and he was always a 
 friend to the people, and always against the tithe, and 
 he has not paid a shilling in tithe to Dean Langrishe 
 since the Dean came to this parish." So far the case 
 seemed very good, and Lord Cloncurry was going to be 
 dismissed as having accorded with the popular wish in 
 the matter, when one of the labourers more indiscreet 
 than the others shouted out: "And what's more, the 
 divil a copper of rent the Dane pays me Lord." So that 
 immediately it became apparent that Lord Cloncurry, on 
 the one hand, was not paying his tithe to Dean Lang- 
 rishe, but, on the other hand, that Dean Langrishe was 
 getting it in meat if not in malt, because he was not 
 called to pay any rent to Lord Cloncurry. The result 
 was that steps were taken that these servants should 
 not go back to work for Lord Cloncurry except he 
 undertook not to pay the tithe. AVell, my Lords, I 
 
I V J IIS TOR V OF AGRA RIA N CRIME 83 
 
 could multiply these instances. These are not cases 
 where, as described in the indictment of The Times, 
 self-interested, self-seeking politicians constructed the 
 machinery for this anti - tithe war. It sprang up 
 naturally, because there was a strong sense of the 
 injustice and oppression which the system was work- 
 ing upon the people ; and then, as naturally takes 
 place in every such movement, there came to the front 
 men who held the same views, men who were fit to 
 do work which the needs of the country at the time 
 required to be done to meet a social wrong and a social 
 oppression. 
 
 There is a Lords' Committee of 1839 which tells the Lords' 
 same story that I have been already telling your Lord- mittce, 
 ships. I do not propose to trouble your Lordships with ^^^^' 
 a repetition of that. I merely give the reference to it 
 in passing, and 1 pass over other similar accounts at 
 other periods. 
 
 Now we come to still later days. A parliamentary Commons' 
 committee of the House of Commons was appointed in mutee, 
 1852; and here the venue is changed from the south ^^^^' 
 and west of Ireland to the north of Ireland, the three 
 counties whose disturbed state was then inquired into 
 being the counties of Armagh, Monaghan, ;md Louth, 
 two of them Ulster counties. The committee was 
 to inquire into the outrages in Ireland, and into 
 the state of those parts of the counties of Armagh, 
 Monaghan, and Louth which were referred to in 
 her Majesty's speech, into the immediate cause of 
 crime and outrage in those districts, and into the 
 efficiency of the laws and their administration for the 
 suppression of such crime and outrage. I will not 
 trouble you at the same length as I have done, and will 
 give your Lordships a summary of the evidence. It 
 
1852. 
 
 84 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 Commons' is iioticeable that what I may call the official class of 
 m*ittee, witncsscs, with hardly an exception — district inspectors, 
 if they existed then, police magistrates, landlords, and so 
 forth — all said the Land Question had nothing to do with 
 the state of things then existing ; all that was wanted to 
 secure peace in Ireland was a strengthening of the criminal 
 law ; and they added that the eftect of any concession in 
 the shape of further yielding (as they called it) to the 
 demands of the Irish tenants would be but to encourage 
 them in their lawlessness, and to encourage their 
 agitators. The aoitators at that time were the men 
 whose names I have already given to you in an earlier 
 portion of my address. The agitators in the south were, 
 prominently, Frederick Lucas, Sir Charles Duffy, John 
 B. Dillon (the father of the accused John Dillon in this 
 case), and, in the north. Dr. M'Knight, editor of the 
 Banner of Ulster, and the Eev. John Eogers, Moderator 
 then or thereafter, as I have already said, of the General 
 Assembly of Ulster, 
 
 But, notwithstanding this official evidence, the 
 committee made two sugojestions. Some witnesses 
 had insisted upon the distrust which existed in 
 the administration of the law, and others had 
 insisted upon the state of the land law, as the cause 
 of the disturbance being inquired into. The com- 
 mittee make these two suggestions — (1) That tliere 
 shall be but one panel of jurors to try issues civil and 
 criminal at these assizes, in addition to any special jury 
 which may be lawfully summoned, and that measures 
 shall be adopted to secure strict impartiality in the con- 
 struction of the jury panel ; (2) That the attention of 
 the Legislature be directed to an early consideration of 
 the laws wliich regulate the relations of landlord and 
 tenant in Ireland with a view to their consolidation and 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 85 
 
 amendment, and especially to consider the practicability commons' 
 of such legislation as might 23rovide adequate security to ^^\^^^^ 
 tenants for permanent improvements, and otherwise ^^^^• 
 place the relation on a more satisfactory basis. 
 
 Sir Charles Duffy, Mr. Lucas, Mr. Isaac Butt, a host of 
 men, had ngain and again, as I shall have to point out, tried 
 to do this thing and failed. Attention had not been suffi- 
 ciently awakened and arrested in the mind of the English 
 people and in the mind of the Imperial Legislature. They 
 had not realised the significance and importance of it. 
 The Uevon Commission of 1845, seven years before, had 
 recommended the same thing, in the same direction, on 
 the same lines ; and yet nothing was done till a quarter 
 of a century after that recommendation of the Devon 
 Commission, namely, in 1870, and then but little. The 
 recommendation boinix in 1845, nothinjx was done till 
 1870, and tlien an Act was passed which, to use the 
 language of Mr. Leonard, agent for Lord Kenmare — 
 language with which I agree — j^i'o^^u*^®*^^ little or no 
 effect. 
 
 The point I am now upon, of course, is still the Their 
 history of crime. The committee took the evidence of summary 
 magistrates, police inspectors, and Catholic clergymen. Evidence. 
 and they reported on the 4tli June 1852. The general 
 state of things proved was the occurrence of numerous 
 murders and other outrages, difficulty in detecting 
 oiFendcrs and securing their punishment, strained rela- 
 tions between landlords and tenants, a widespread secret 
 Eibl)on society, and an open and avowedly constitutional 
 organisation called the Tenant League, the heads of 
 wliich I have mentioned. Evidence was given that 
 murdei's of landlords and land agents and magistrates 
 had taken ])la(;e, one notably attracted a great deal 
 of attention at the time, the murder of one Maul- 
 
86 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 Commons' everei', which was the occasion (I may mention it, as I 
 Suee, have animadverted strongly upon The Times in general) 
 ^^^'^- of an article in The Times, stronger in its language 
 than any speech or combination of speeches that 
 have been read in the course of this case ; bailiffs 
 beaten for serving tenants with notices calling upon 
 them to attend and pay their rents ; herds and 
 caretakers of evicted farms murdered ; outrages upon 
 occupiers of evicted farms ; the murder of an agent, 
 Powell, who had been clearing lands to enlarge the 
 demesne of the owner, one Quinn ; a baker threatened for 
 collecting his debts ; an agent murdered for collecting- 
 rents ; threats to the bailiff" who served the notices to 
 pay the rents and to come into the office ; and threats 
 also to tenants who were going to pay rent and who had 
 paid without reduction — the very same class of thing as 
 is in question here ; proof that it was customary for 
 gentlemen to travel armed ; threatening notices with 
 coffins and the rest ; outrages to prevent bidding for 
 farms ; outrages upon the occupiers. A number of these 
 it was proved, as in this case, although connected with 
 land, probably arose from private quarrels and differences. 
 Then, as regards the incidents and effects of these 
 crimes, the great majority of the witnesses admitted that 
 the Land Question was at the root of them ; that the 
 principal object was to get reductions of rents and to 
 prevent evictions ; that a large quantity of land was 
 waste, because none dared to take it, and the landlords 
 were afraid to stock it with cattle lest the cattle should 
 be injured ; general indisposition to take land from 
 which tenants had been evicted ; general sympathy witli 
 outrage, leading to the withholding of evidence ; 
 evidence of getting up subscriptions for the defence of 
 prisoners in agrarian cases ; and regrettable but true — I 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 87 
 
 mean as connecting cause with effect — reductions of commons' 
 rents, stoppings of contemplated evictions after and in U°™ee^ 
 consequence of outrage or the dread or apj)rehension of ^^^^' 
 outrage ; and lastly, the agents in the commission of 
 these offences, the active workers, shown to he labouring 
 men and the younger sons of small farmers — the very 
 thing which you have again in this case — men who 
 are descril^ed as moral in other relations of life ; crime 
 in Ireland spoken of as the " crime of the community." 
 An illustrious man, whose tongue is now silent for ever, 
 Mr. John Bright, was a member of this committee, and I 
 only wish your Lordships had the time and the oppor- 
 tunity to go through this evidence and read his cross- 
 examination of witnesses, and see, reading between the 
 lines, the views that were in full pressure and force upon 
 his mind as to the difficulties and the causes which lie 
 at the bottom of this disturbance. 
 
 Now, the evidence also showed that the rents had pre- 
 viously been punctually paid until the bad seasons of the 
 potato crop. That is exactly what I shall prove, and, what 
 already has been proved to be the case here, that those 
 rents were paid partly out of the produce of the land, 
 partly by harvest earnings in England, for even from the 
 county of Armagh persons have gone for the purpose of 
 working in the English harvests; partly from remittances 
 from relatives in service in England, and from relatives 
 in America ; that in the period of distress small subscrip- 
 tions and little help came from the landlords to alleviate 
 tlie distress ; that the greatest number of the outrages 
 were in the baronies and parts of the counties where there 
 were most ejectments and most threats of ejectment; and 
 according to some of the witnesses that the outrages were 
 due to tlie high letting of the land and to the evictions, 
 find to j)eo})le having no other resource but the land. 
 
HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 
 
 1852 
 
 Commons' I am HOW reading (rather than read tlie whole 
 
 ndttee, thing at great length) a summary of the evidence, 
 and ojDposite the summary the number of the question 
 is in each case given, and I shall be glad to hand up 
 both the book and the summary, if your Lordships desire 
 to look at it. 
 
 It was further shown that the machinery of 
 outrage was organised by a secret society of Riljbon- 
 men ; that these societies were working by identical 
 methods in the north and in the south ; and that they 
 were of long standing and under various names. Then 
 it was shown that the Ilibbonmen belonged to a par- 
 ticular religious section just as the Steelboys belonged 
 to one particular religious section, though, so far as 
 their methods and the objects of their attacks were 
 concerned. Catholics equally with Protestants were 
 attacked. They made self- constituted tribunals to 
 settle the aftairs of the country ; forced contribu- 
 tions ; lots were drawn as to the commission of out- 
 rage ; persons not allowed to take land from which 
 others had been evicted. And, in answer to a sug- 
 gestion — a very faint and unimportant suggestion — 
 which was made in the course of the inquiry as to 
 the part wliich the Tenant League had in the matter, 
 I should like to read two or three questions at greater 
 length. The only persons who made that suggestion 
 were what I have called the police or official witnesses. 
 I think this particular witness, a clergyman, was being 
 examined by Mr. John Bright, who apparently had a 
 proof of his evidence. 
 
 " You have stated that the origin of Eibbonism was the exist- 
 ence of Orange Societies." " You have alluded to the case of Mr. 
 Powell" (and so on. I need not trouble your Lor(lshi[)S about 
 that). " You are perhaps aware that the Tenant League Association 
 
IV HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 89 
 
 has been formed recently % (A.) Yes. (Q.) Would you ascribe the Commons' 
 increase of crime in your district, or in neighbouring districts, to .!"' 
 the existence of the Tenant League ? (A.) I would not. (Q.) 1852. 
 Would you say there is any connection lietwcen the Tenant League 
 Association and the perpetrators of crime in the districts with which 
 you are acquainted ? (A.) I think the Tenant League has a directly 
 opposite eflect, inasmuch as hopes are held out that the condition of 
 the tenant may be improved ; and I think that very expectation 
 tends very much to promote peace, and tliat any hope whicli is at all 
 aflbrded that at any prosi)ective time protection will come in the 
 shape of a ((uiet and peaceful arrangement of the differences between 
 landlord and tenant tends very much to the preservation of peace. 
 . . . (Q.) Do you believe that the Tenant League are taking a peace- 
 able and constitutional mode of accomplishing that object % (A.) I 
 do ; and their motto is, in point of fact, that every one who does 
 commit a crime in the prosecution of that object is an enemy to the 
 Tenant League. (Mr. Bright) I presume what you mean in regard 
 to the Tenniit League is, that they endeavour to make the i)coplo 
 understand tlie, (picstion, and they make eflbrts to get legislation in 
 their favour ? (A.) Yes. (Q.) Are you to be understood as justify- 
 ing and defending and identif^dng yourself with every statement 
 which is made by the Tenant League? (A.) No." 
 
 My Lords, a, good deal more evidence is giveu to that 
 effect, but there is the evidence of one witness which 
 struck me as particularly important, the official witness 
 whose name I have already read — namely, Sir Matthew 
 Barrington, who appears to have been a Crown official 
 for a great many years of his life. He was clerk of the 
 Crown, 1 think, in Munster. I just interpose one other 
 question. The Rev. Daniel Brown, Presbyterian clergy- 
 man of Newtown Hamilton, in the county of Armagh, is 
 examined. He is asked : — 
 
 "Have agrarian outrages increased within the last few years ? 
 (A.) They ap])ear to me to have increased since the failure of the 
 }»otato cro}), when the small farmers found it difficult to make up 
 the rents they had been accustomed to pay, and landlords and agents 
 commenced evicting and serving notices to quit. (Q.) Can you 
 
90 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 Commons' assign any reason for these outrages? (A.) I think the want of a 
 
 *^'?'?' constitutional remedy for the social wrongs connected with the re- 
 
 mittee, -^ /. 1 1- 1 
 
 1852, lation of landlord and tenant has led to many of these ollcnces and 
 
 crimes. I think if you gave a constitutional remedy for these social 
 
 wrongs you would cut up crime by the root, and establish order on 
 
 the basis of justice." 
 
 Again, the same Presbyterian clergyman on page 583 
 says this : — 
 
 " (Q.) Do you think that the outrages which have occurred in 
 those districts are the result of Ribbon conspiracy? (A.) I cannot 
 say what may have been the agency employed — I am not cognisant 
 of that; but I feel satisfied in my own judgment and conscience 
 that they arose from the unfortunate state of the relations between 
 landlord and tenant. I do not impute them to religion or to politics ; 
 and I say further, that when the State has not provided a constitu- 
 tional remedy for social wrongs, the principles of our nature look for 
 a remedy, and bad men, taking advantage of that, very often commit 
 crime. Coercion without remedial measures will only aggravate the 
 disorders of the community. Justice is the only firm basis of public 
 order. The oppression of rack-rents and of extra police taxation, 
 punishing the innocent for the guilty, exasperates and disturbs the 
 community, and drives multitudes aAvay to a land where labour 
 finds its reward." 
 
 My Lords, I merely call attention to the evidence of 
 Sir Matthew Barrington, but before I leave this Committee 
 I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the 
 figures of crime. It is at page 590 of the Appendix to 
 the Report. First, there is the return of the number of 
 cases in which parties have been made amenable to 
 justice for the years 1849 and 1850. Then there is a 
 comparative return of outrages and arrests reported as 
 distinguished from those for which parties had been 
 made amenable. I will only trouble your Lordships with 
 the more important oftences of homicide and firing at 
 the person. 
 
 In 1849 parties made amenable: Homicides, 1G3 ; 
 
HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME 91 
 
 ommons 
 
 firing at persons, 44 ; total number of cases of all c 
 kinds at sessions, general sessions, assizes, magistrates, n,°"tee 
 190,009. That is for the year 1849. In 1850, liomi- ^^^2. 
 cides, 1G5 ; firing at persons, 22. Your Lordships of 
 course understand tliat this is not conversant only 
 with agrarian crime ; it deals with all crime, the total 
 being 214,181 for tlic whole of Ireland. That is every- 
 thing. 1 am citing it merely for my present purpose 
 under the head of homicide. Those are the cases for which 
 parties have been made amenable. Now, the cases 
 of homicide reported in 1849, are 203 ; in 1850, 139. I 
 remind your Lordships that over the whole period of 
 ten years whicli has rightly or wTongly been covered in 
 this inquiry (I mean by the evidence given in this 
 inquiry), going down to as late as the year 1888, I think, 
 if not the year 1889, the entire number of murders of 
 Avliich full and direct evidence has been olTered to your 
 Lordsliips, connected with agrarian causes, amounts, I 
 believe, to about 2G. 
 
 My Lords, when the Court adjourned yesterday I was 
 ])ursuing tlie history of agrarian crime in Ireland, and I 
 was following in order the account, witli which I troubled 
 your Lordships at some length, of what I described as 
 the historical predisposing causes to crime in times of 
 distress and particularly to agrarian crime in Ireland. 
 I have nearly arrived at the end of that branch of the 
 case. I have referred your Lordships to the remarkable 
 parallelism between the state of things shown to exist in 
 1852 in the three counties of Armagh, Monaghan, and 
 Louth, two of those counties being Ulster counties. 
 
 Next in order of date came the Land Act of 1870, 
 but I do not propose to give your Lordships a history of 
 that Act at this moment. I desire to give it under the 
 next head, as part of the historical treatment by legisla- 
 
92 HISTORY OF AGRARIAN CRIME iv 
 
 Crime in tivG action of tlic Laiid Question itself. But in 1870 or 
 1870-71. ^gH^j^ there was another outbreak of crime in Ireland 
 which prevailed in a most marked degree in West Meath, 
 which was one of many counties in Ireland which had 
 been subjected to clearances upon an enormous scale. 
 Whole villages and hamlets and houses by the hundred 
 had disappeared under the operations of those clearances ; 
 and in 1870 and 1871 undoubtedly crime had risen to a 
 very high point in West Meath. There was one of the 
 usual committees of inquiry, and at that time and in 
 relation to that measure a speech was made by a states- 
 man, I mean Lord Hartington, in 1871, describing 
 the state of things there. After describing the crimes 
 which existed, he proceeds thus : — 
 
 " All these acts of violence are, we have reason to believe, the 
 work of the Ribbon Society. The reports which we receive show 
 that such a state of terrorism prevails that the society has only to 
 issue an edict to secure obedience. Nor has it even to issue its 
 edict ; its laws are so well known and infringement of them is fol- 
 lowed so regularly by murderous outrage tliat few indeed can treat 
 them with defiance. Ribbon law and not the law of the land 
 appears to be that which is obeyed. It exercises such power that 
 no landlord dares to exercise the commonest rights of property. 
 No farmer or other occupier dare exercise his own judgment or dis- 
 cretion as to whom he shall employ. In fact, so far does the influ- 
 ence of the society extend, that a man scarcely dares to enter into 
 open competition in fairs and markets with any one known to 
 belong to the society." 
 
 My Lords, this was a time when there existed no 
 open organisation in relation to the Land Question, at 
 whose door could be laid the blame of these events. I 
 shall have to refer at this date also to the views, perhaps 
 as important as any views to which I have hitherto 
 called attention, of Dr. Neilson Hancock, for many years 
 the statistician of succeeding Irish Governments, whose 
 
IV HIS TOR V OF A GRA RIA N CRIME 
 
 93 
 
 views upon the social and economic condition of Ireland 
 have been regarded by all men of all parties as entitled 
 to the highest wciglit. That, again, I reserve until I 
 come to the consideration of the Land Act of 1870. 
 
 Lastly, in this connection I will cite, a little out of 
 order of time, an authority of great weight, to whom I 
 refer now ])ecause, in connection with the expression of 
 his opinions, he mentions as regards a particular epoch 
 to which I have not drawn pointed attention — the 
 state of crime as it then existed. I refer to an import- 
 ant sj^eech of Lord John Russell when, in 184G, one of 
 the perennial Coercion Acts was being introduced into 
 Parliament. I find the book is not at hand, and I will 
 not refer to it. 
 
lation. 
 
 V. 
 
 HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 I NEXT come to the question of tlie history of legishxtive 
 dealing with the Land Question, and I may remind your 
 Recapitu- Lordships, in order that the sequence may be clear in 
 your minds, what I have endeavoured so far to make clear. 
 I have dealt historically with what I have called the pre- 
 disposing causes of crime, and especially in times of dis- 
 tress of agrarian crime. I have shown, I think, that the 
 main volume of crime was in fact agrarian, and I have also 
 shown that in the previous periods to which I have ad- 
 verted, agrarian crimes existed of the same class, spring- 
 ing from the same causes, but in greater volume and 
 intensity than in the period with which your Lordships 
 are now dealing. I have established, I submit, that 
 with the recurrent distress there was recurrent crime ; 
 and I wish to emphasise that all the more, because your 
 Lordships will recollect that in the present case while 
 the Land League was universal in Ireland, with branches 
 in every county and in every parish, the crime attributed 
 to it is local, and, in point of fact, the crime which it is 
 here sought to attribute to the action of the Land Leaoue, 
 
 CD O ' 
 
 under the direction and inspiration of the leaders of the 
 Land League, existed in the districts and the area in 
 which Parliament has by its Relief Acts recognised that 
 the greatest amount of distress prevailed. 
 
V HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 95 
 
 Your Lordships iricay not know at the moment — 
 your Lordships have not yet, I think, been told — that 
 we have definite authority for defining that area of dis- 
 tress, that definite authority being the action of Parlia- 
 ment in the years 1879 and 1880, which scheduled for 
 certain purposes, to which I will hereafter refer, what 
 were known as distressed districts. Those districts, 
 l^roadly speaking, comprise parts of Galway, parts of 
 i\layo, parts of Kerry, parts of Clare, and part of Cork. 
 You will recollect that we sought to press the witnesses 
 in cross-examination as to whether the greatest crime did 
 not exist in the most distressed districts, and whether, 
 outside those districts where the action of the 
 League was vigorous (as was the case, your Lord- 
 ships will hear, all over the country), there was not the 
 same presence of crime. The Attorney-General, in order 
 to make some attempt to meet that suggestion, called 
 one or two witnesses from AYexford, as well as I recol- 
 lect, and I think one or two from the Queen's County, 
 to speak to some acts of boycotting, and I think, in one 
 case, to some acts of violence. The evidence was slight, 
 tlic crimes unimportant. I am entitled, therefore, I 
 submit, to assume, as I believe the fact is, and as 
 I believe the statistics of crime which have been put in 
 show, that in no abnormal sense did crime, even of an 
 agrarian kind, prevail in the other parts of L-eland out- 
 side the comparatively narrow extent of the distressed dis- 
 tricts, although the Land League was strong and active. 
 
 Having dealt with those matters, I have now to ask uigtory of 
 your Lordshiiis to consider how Parliament has dealt ^^"!\ 
 
 J 1 Legisla- 
 
 Avith this Land Question, wdiich I have endeavoured to tion. 
 show was at the root of the difficulties which exist. 
 And here let me make this broad statement, that before 
 the Act of Union, as well as since the Act of Union, 
 
96 HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 General there liad been a unanimous condemnation by every 
 tion'oTthe writer of the existing Land system in Irehmd. I call 
 System!"'^ upou thosc who may be disposed to dispute my assertion 
 to produce one writer of authority who has ever defended 
 that land system as it has prevailed in Ireland. I could 
 occupy your Lordships' attention for long on this matter. 
 I do not propose to do so ; but I may cite amongst those 
 who have condemned the system and attributed to its 
 existence many of the evils which exist in Ireland, such 
 writers of authority as Bishop Nicliolson, Dean Swift, 
 Bishop Berkeley, and Lord Clare, who, answering 
 Grattan in an appeal which he made in the Irish Parlia- 
 ment upon this very question, uses this remarkable 
 language : — 
 
 " I am very well acquainted " (he says) " with the province of" 
 Munster, and I know that it is impossible for human wretchedness to 
 exceed that of the miserable peasantry of the province. I know that 
 the unhappy tenantry are ground to powder by relentless landlords." 
 
 I might cite the authority of Archlnshop King, of 
 John Wesley, of Archbishop Synge, of Mr, Dobbs, of 
 Skelton, of Madden, of Arthur Young (whose authority 
 is second to none in the consideration of economic ques- 
 tions), of Lord Townshend (Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland), 
 of Lord Charlemont, who uses these words : — 
 
 "The grievances of the peasantry are exorljitant rents, low 
 wages, want of employment in a country destitute of manufactures, 
 where desolation and famine were the effects of fertility, Avhere the 
 rich gifts of a bountiful mother Avere destructive to her cliildreii, 
 and served only to tantalise them ; where oxen supplied the i)lace 
 of men, and by leaving little room for cultivation while they 
 enriched their pampered owner, starved the miserable remnant of 
 the thinly-scattered inhabitants ; farms of enormous extent, let by 
 their rapacious and indolent proprietors to monopolising land- 
 jobbers, by whom small portions of them Avere again let and re-let 
 to intermediate oppressors, and by them subdivided for five times 
 their value among the wretched starvers on potatoes and Avater." 
 
V HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 97 
 
 I niiglit refer to Bishop Woodward, to George General 
 Cooper, anioiigst other authorities before the Act oftionoT" 
 Union ; since the Act of Union, Newenham in his View La^^,\ 
 of Ireland ; AVakefield, one of the most inteHigent writers ^>'^'^''"^- 
 of this period, in \\i^ Account of Ireland. I might refer 
 to report after report of committees of the Houses of 
 Parliament in 1819, in 1823 ; to the reports of the Poor 
 Law Commissioners, showing tlie condition of the culti- 
 vators of the soil ; to Thomas Drummond, to Gustave de 
 Beaumont, to the Devon Commission. To Sir George 
 Lewis 1 have already referred, and 1 have already 
 directed your Lordships' attention to the remarkable 
 pronouncement of Baron Fletcher in 1814. 
 
 j\Iy Lords, I again aflirm that, while there has been Nothing 
 this unanimous chorus of condemnation (and I ask that i870. 
 my proposition may be ciiallenged and questioned, if it 
 can be), until the year 1870 nothing was done to protect 
 the tenant or to stay the rapacity of the landlords. I 
 say tliat what was done, even on the testimony 
 your Lordships have already had from a land agent 
 of experience in tlie south of Ireland (I mean Lord 
 Kcnmare's agent, ]\lr. Leonard), had no practical or 
 widespread ellect. Again, I remind your Lordships ofActi870 
 what I have previously said, but its importance will mZt 
 justify my repeating it — that human experience shows 
 tliat you may have a bad system of law, in which the 
 rights of one class of the community may be by the law 
 to a great extent at tlie mercy of another class ; you 
 may notwithstanding have, in a healthy community, 
 where there is a local influential public opinion, a law 
 in its letter intolerable and yet, in its daily ad- 
 ministration and under the moderate exercise of its 
 rights, a state of things which is perfectly tolerable. 
 But I liave pointed out to your Lordships that 
 
 H 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 while the hiw gave no protection, the unhappy politi- 
 cal, social, and religious circumstances of the country 
 deprived the people of that protection of public opinion 
 which moderates, controls, and makes the law and modi- 
 fies its exercise. 
 
 I wiil not go to remote periods in the history of the 
 Land Question. I will not, although commentators have 
 done so, lay stress on and give importance to the history 
 or dwell upon the story, of the various confiscations in 
 Ireland. I will only make this passing comment. It 
 is conceivable that wholesale confiscations might take 
 place in a community, infiicting great injury and in- 
 justice upon individual owners of land, and yet th.e 
 general progress of the community would not thereby 
 be seriously afiected ; and of that character have 
 been the confiscations, speaking generally, which have 
 occurred in England. But in Ireland the history of 
 the confiscations was wholly difterent, for it mennt not 
 merely the confiscation of the property of the landlord, 
 but the confiscation of the status under the old tribal 
 and sept system of the Irish tenant class. It meant not 
 merely the confiscation of the property of the landlord, 
 it meant the introduction of the feudal system into 
 Ireland, wholly foreign to the country, which practically 
 and materially altered the status of the actual cultivators 
 of the soil. 
 
 I have said T will not go far bat^k in the history oC 
 the question beyond that passing word. \\\ 1843 the 
 Devon Dcvou Commissiou was appointed, and in 1845 made its 
 sioi!, 1843. report. It was appointed in December 1843, and it 
 derives its name from the distinguished nobleman, a man 
 of undoubtedly great ability, who was at its head, I 
 mean the tlien Earl of Devon — a man who undoubtedly 
 showed the greatest ability in the conduct of the inquiry 
 
V HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION gg 
 
 committed to liim. I have to say of that Commission, Devon 
 as I have to say of every commission down to the latest, sion ™ 843. 
 that it was in the main a landlord commission, that is to 
 say, that each commission has been a commission the 
 heads of which were identified with the landed interest ; 
 that they were, for the most part (I think with the single 
 exception of the Bessborough Commission in 1880, to 
 wliich I shall have to call attention in a moment), com- 
 missions not merely of landlords or men in the landlord 
 interest and connection, bnt they were mainly English- 
 men, I am not suggesting that they were the worse for 
 that ; but what 1 mean to suggest is, that while on the 
 one hand, if they were to be taken from the landlord 
 class, it certainly was desirable that they should not be 
 taken from the Irisli landlord class ; on the other hand, 
 tliat they npproached tlie question with no antecedent 
 knowledge of it, bringing to it views and considerations 
 of the relative position of English landlords and tenants, 
 and conceptions drawn from the system which prevailed 
 in England. Under the direct superintendence ofriieiv 
 Lord Devon himself, a digest of the part relating to 
 the occupation of land in Ireland was published, for I 
 may tell your Lordships that the re])ort itself extends 
 to a very large number of huge blue 1)ooks with which 
 I could not think of troubling your Lordships, but in 
 the preliminary chapter the first and second sentences 
 are these : — 
 
 " Tlic whole of that vast mass of evidence taken by tho Commis- 
 sioners in reference to the mutual relations existing between the 
 pro[)rietors and occupiers of land in Ireland is at once conclusive, 
 })ainfnlly interesting, and most portentous in its character. It 
 proves that the safety of the country, and the respective interests 
 of both those classes, call loudly for a cautious but immediate adjust- 
 ment of the grave rpiestions at issue between them. In every dis- 
 trict of the country we find that a widely-spread and daily-increasing 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 Devon confusioii as to the respective rights and daims of these classes 
 
 Commis- exists ; and it is impossible to reject the conviction that, unless they 
 siou, 1843. • 1 T- 1 1 
 
 Their be distinctly defined and respected, much social disorder and 
 
 Report. national inconvenience must inevitably be the consequence." 
 
 My Lords, for a quarter of a century, in tlie face of 
 that solemn warning, nothing Avas done. 
 He then goes on : — 
 
 "It is difficult to deny that the eflfect of this system is a practi- 
 cal assumption by the tenant of joint proprietorship in the land ; 
 although those landlords who ac(piiesce in it do not acknowledge 
 to themselves this broad fact, and that the tendency is gradually to 
 convert the proprietor into a mere rent charger, having an indefinite 
 and declining annuity. In the north, where it is permitted, agrarian 
 crimes are rare. In other places, where it is resisted, they are of 
 common occurrence." 
 
 My Lords, let me here point out that, as to the 
 ground upon which rests the justification of tenant 
 right in the north, or, as it is called, dual ownership or 
 joint proprietorship, precisely the same ground exists 
 over the whole of the rest of L'cland. It is based 
 upon the fact, the essential fact, speaking broadly and 
 generally, that whereas in England a fiirm is let equipped 
 for its use as a farm, that while in England the landlord 
 has to put his hand in Ids pocket from year to year, his 
 covenant requiring him to keep up the farm buildings, 
 houses, fencing, and gateing and draining ; that all this, 
 broadly speaking, is the work of the tenants in Ireland ; 
 and I do not hesitate to say that to such an extent has 
 that system prevailed in L'eland, that under a strong- 
 healthy local opinion there would have been years ago in 
 L'eland a declaration probably coming from the judicial 
 bench, recognising the custom — recognising the equities 
 which arise from that custom, and doinir what tlie 
 English judges did in a case not very dissimilar — de- 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 clni'ing the copyhold rights of large classes of occupiers Devon 
 laiicl 111 that country. sion^ 1843 
 
 Lord Devon then goes on to warn the proprietors ; 
 indeed he uses (I had forgotten it) the very word which 
 I have just used. He says : — 
 
 " The landowners do not appear aware of the peril which thus 
 threatens their property, and which must increase every day that 
 the}' (hifcr to establish the rights of the tenants on a definite and 
 equitable footing. They do not perceive that the present tenant 
 right of Ulster is in fact an cmlnyo copyhold." 
 
 Then, my Lords, a little later on : — 
 
 " They do not perceive that the disorganised state of Tipperary 
 and the agrarian combination throughout Ulster are but the metho- 
 dised war to obtain the Ulster tenant right, or that any established 
 practice not only may, but must, erect itself finally into law, and 
 anyl)ody who will take the ])ains to analyse this growing practice 
 will soon perceive how inevitable that consequence must be in the 
 present case unless the practice itself be sujierseded by a substitute 
 that shall put the whole question on a sound, equitable, and in- 
 vigorating basis." 
 
 Your Lordships cannot fail to see that while the 
 mind of Lord Devon was struck with the necessity of 
 de.'ding with it, yet im^^orting his own notion of the 
 rights of property, and his own preconception of how 
 property is dealt with in England in the relation of land- 
 lord and tenant, he is struggling to suggest tlie necessity, 
 is pressing the necessity, for an equitable adjustment of 
 this question. 
 
 My Lords, there are many passages in this report 
 which I should be glad to read in the same sense, but I 
 will not. Then, my Lords, in chapter viii. he proceeds 
 to consider the evidence as to the connection between the 
 state of the law and agrarian crime in L'eland. 
 
 " The great majority of outrages mentioned in the evidence here 
 appear to have risen from the endeavours of the peasantry to convert 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 Devon the possession of land into an indefeasible title. In the northern 
 
 *^°"'"in",o counties the general recognition of the tenant right has i)revcnted 
 sion, 184J. ° ° T-i 1 1 
 
 the frequent recurrence of these crimes. Even there, however, if 
 
 the tenant right he disregarded, and a tenant be evicted without 
 
 having received the price of his good will, outrages are generally the 
 
 consequence. The opinion of most of the Ulster witnesses examined 
 
 upon the point appears to be that any systematic attempt to destroy 
 
 the tenant right would be attended with much danger to the peace 
 
 of the country." 
 
 And remembering the way in which this case has 
 been presented, let me read this passage : — 
 
 " It further appears from the evidence that vengeance is more 
 frequently directed against the incoming tenant than against the 
 landlord or an agent ; that in some cases prejudices are mingled 
 with the other agrarian causes producing outrage. There can be 
 very little doubt, after full consideration of the whole evidence, that 
 the real original source of agrarian outrage, as well as of most other 
 national disorders that exist in Ireland, is the disproportion between 
 the demand for and the supply of labour, aiul the gross ignorance 
 of the profitable modes of ai)plying such labour. The [)rice of land, 
 however small its extent, had become the only security for the 
 supply of food, and to lose that security was, in fact, to risk the 
 very existence of the family from which it was taken. Hence most 
 occupiers of land in Ireland have been interested in one common 
 and well understood cause, which, without any expressed agreement, 
 was well calculated to produce amongst them that uniformity of 
 action which is found to prevail in Ireland in resisting the exercise 
 of legal rights." 
 
 Some remarkable evidence was given by one of the 
 witnesses, to which I should like to call your attention. 
 It was Mr. Hancock, a brother of Dr. Neilson Hancock 
 to whom I have referred. He had for years been the 
 agent for the estate of the late Lord Lnrgan, situated, 
 as your Lordships are aware, in Ulster. I have not, my 
 Lords, at the moment the passage in my hand, but I 
 well recollect it. He gave his evidence before the Com- 
 
von 
 
 V HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 103 
 
 mission, and very much in the sense in which Lord De 
 Devon refers to it. ^--^;3. 
 
 " He said tenant right is the real security for the peace of 
 Ulster. He pointed out that the ])rcscnce of manufactures in 
 Ulster had, to some extent, lessened the demand for land in Ulster 
 in the sense of not makiiig it the same necessity for the subsistence 
 of the pco[)le." 
 
 lUit he uses this extraordinary language: — 
 
 " If there was any systematic attempt to interfere with the 
 tenant right of the tenants of Ulster, I do not believe that there is 
 force enough in the Horse Guards to put it down." 
 
 Again the same man, Mr. Hancock, on the eve of the 
 Land Act of 1870, was consulted — I thought I had the 
 work here — and he said : — 
 
 " I repeat with greater emphasis, after a further experience of 
 a quarter of a century, what 1 said before the Devon Commission, 
 and I say that, having had .30 3'ears' experience of the management 
 of a largo estate in Ulster, ui)on which crime has l)een lowest, upon 
 which distress has been lowest, and in which the police force of 
 the district has been lower than in any other jjart of Ireland." 
 
 Well, my Lords, 1 have said nothing was done, Attempts 
 although much was attempted. I gave your Lordships late. 
 yesterday the names of some men who made attempts 
 — Sharman Crawford, Lucas, Dufly, George Henry 
 Moore, Isaac Butt, and one name that I had forgotten, 
 which I certainly ought not to have forgotten, for he 
 laboured earnestly and zealously on this question — I 
 mean the late Mr. Justice Shee, when he was in the 
 House of Commons. What was the fate of those 
 attempts ? Parliament crowded with other affairs — the 
 minds of men occui)ied with matters which they re- 
 garded as of graver moment — men did not realise the 
 import.'uice to the peace of L^eland and the content- 
 ment of its people involved in this question. The 
 
I04 HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION v 
 
 result was tluit not one of those atteiiipts was suc- 
 cessful. Some of them may have passed the l)arrier of 
 the House of Commons, Init none of them ever issued 
 as law from the House of Lords. I am not making in 
 this case, as your Lordships well know, an attack upon 
 either political painty. I am speaking of the general 
 misgovernment of the country, from a want of appre- 
 ciation of the circumstances of the country, from a 
 misunderstanding of the needs of the country ; and 1 
 gladly say that it was an eminent man, and a lawyer of 
 the Tory party, who showed as much foresight and as 
 keen an appreciation of this question as any of the other 
 men to whom I have called attention — I mean the late 
 Mr. Joseph Napier, for many years, as your Lordships 
 will recollect, member for the University of L)ul)lin, a 
 member of the Privy Council in this country, and after- 
 wards, as your Lordships will also recollect, Lord 
 Chancellor of Ireland. 
 Reeom- Ncxt in ordcr comes, in giving your Lordships the 
 
 oToom-°"'' history of the matter, the recommendation of the com- 
 nuttee, mittcc inquiring into the state of crime in certain dis- 
 tricts in L'eland in 1852. I referred to it yesterday. I 
 will not recur to it now. It is remarkable, because that 
 committee was not appointed to consider the Land Ques- 
 tion, and the evidence of the official witnesses called 
 before that committee is that the Land Question has 
 nothing to do with the trouble that existed in Ireland 
 at that time. Nay, they go the length of saying that 
 any concession to the Irish tenant class would only 
 create disorder in giving them greater confidence and 
 hope that by perseverance in disorder they may effect 
 greater change. And yet you have there recommenda- 
 tions which I will not again read, of the need for 
 legislation on the question. 
 
V HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION ' 105 
 
 My Lords, in 18 GO, before we come to the Land 
 Act, a retrograde Act, known as Deasy's Act, was Deasy's 
 passed, at a time when Irish Parliamentary reprcsenta- ^'''^ ^^*'"' 
 lion stood indeed at a very hjw and discreditable 
 ebb, for the country had not recovered the shock, 
 the want of faith created by the betrayal of the 
 inde|)cndent o})position jiarty formed and created in 
 1852. 'JMiis was an Act, as every Act j^assed up 
 to the time of which I am now speaking was 
 passed, to help the landlords, and not, as I shall show 
 your Lordships presently ujjon high autliority, one 
 passed for the protection of the tenant. It turned the 
 relation between landlord and tenant from relation by 
 tenure into relation by contract ; it gave certain facili- 
 ties in the matter of proceedings in ejectment ; it recog- 
 nised and formulated what had been an existina; law in 
 Ireland, going back for a long period — a state of law 
 unknown in this country, and, as far as I know, un- 
 known in Scotland, I mean the right of ejectment pure 
 and simple for non-payment of rent. There is no such 
 thing known to our law. Yet it has been the law for 
 years in Ireland. Our law is, that you can recover as 
 for condition broken, if you have a clause of re-entry in 
 your contract ; but upon a letting ]iure and simple of 
 land without that clause (which is tlie state of things in 
 Ireland) you could not maintain the action of ejectment 
 merely for non-payment of rent. 
 
 But, my Lords, I Avill mention it a little out of 
 date, perhaps the most remarkable Act passed in relation 
 to Ireland on the Land Question was passed in the year 
 1848. I mean the Encumbered Estates Act. It was e,,^,,^,. 
 supposed that all that was wanted in Ireland was what is 'jjJJ'^^J^^ 
 called the introduction of capital; that all that was ^^^t iS48. 
 wanted in Ireland was to dispossess, to get rid of an- 
 
io6 HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION v 
 
 cient owners of land who had by their own improvidence 
 and their extravagance, or by that of their ancestors, 
 become wholly overwhelmed by debt, and unable to 
 discharge those duties wliich are supposed to be con- 
 nected according to English notions with tlie ownership 
 of land. My Lords, a more complete misconception 
 of the state of things in Ireland than that Act evinced 
 can hardly be pointed to. For what did it do ? 1 
 am not denouncing Irish landlords, neither do 1 wish 
 to confound them in one general body. There are 
 men amongst them who, I doubt not, have struggled 
 under difficulties to do their duty. I believe there 
 are many more amongst them who are suffering less 
 for their own sins than for the sins of their f\xthers, 
 and from the evils of the system under which they 
 have lived. But what was the effect of this Act ? 
 It is hardly conceivable that a legislature in which 
 Ireland was represented — imperfectly, it is true — 
 that a legislature purporting to deal with Ireland 
 should have so misconceived the position as to have 
 passed that Act. For what did it do ? It sold 
 the estates of the bankrupt landlords to men with 
 capital, who were mainly jobbers in land, with the 
 accumulated improvements and interests of the 
 tenants, and without the slightest protection against 
 the forfeiture and confiscation of these improve- 
 ments and interests, at the hands of the proprietor 
 newly acquiring the estate. It was intended, I 
 doubt not, to effect good. It proved a cause of the 
 gravest evil, for it is literally true to say — and there is 
 not one, I think, who will dispute the statement — that 
 amongst the worst cases of landlord oppression in 
 Ireland have been the cases of men who, with their 
 fresh capital, came in and bought these estates, looking 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 107 
 
 to the percentage of return which they could get for 
 tlieir money — ^jobbers in land who were not restrained 
 by any feelings — and such feelings, my Lords, did to a 
 certain extent exist — of kindness because of ancient 
 connection between an ancient peasantry and an ancient 
 proprietary house. And I have seen, as my learned 
 friends have all seen, rental after rental of property sold 
 in the Encumbered Estates Court, in which, as an in- 
 ducement to the intending buyer, were held forth the 
 alleged low rentals at which the property w\as then let, 
 and the possibility held out to the expected purchaser 
 that he might, by another turn of the screw, raise the 
 rent and increase his percentage return for the land he 
 was buying. My Lords, it is a sad, pitiable, remark- 
 able proof of the utter ignorance which prevailed, I say 
 it broadly and boldly, even among men well intentioned, 
 as to what the needs of the Irish question in this regard 
 demanded. 
 
 In 1870 the first Act which gave any protection Land Act 
 to tlie Irish tenant was passed. I can deal with it 
 very shortly. It to some extent recognised and legal- 
 ised the Ulster tenant custom in Ulster, where that 
 custom was shown to prevail ; and as regards the jDarts 
 of Ireland where it did not prevail, it provided that, 
 where by a process of arbitrary or capricious eviction 
 a landlord ejected his tenant, he should be obliged to 
 pay him, subject to the judgment of the county court 
 judge, n certain measure of compensation for the loss of 
 his farm. 
 
 My Lords, that that Act was well intended nobody 
 can doubt, but it left the House of Commons stronger 
 and more protective than it returned, for in the House 
 of Lords it was to a considerable degree emasculated. 
 But, as it became law, it, l)roadly speaking, contained the 
 
io8 HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION v 
 
 provision that I have mentioned. But what it did not 
 do was this — it had no provision against arbitrary and 
 excessive increases of rent. It gave to the tenant, in 
 certain events, chances and opportunities of getting 
 some compensation if he quitted his farm ; but I 
 remind your Lordships that the farm is the thing 
 — the holdino; is the thino- — to which the man h^oks 
 for liis support and that of his ftmiily, and that he 
 could only get compensation in the extreme and in the 
 rare case where he was willing to give up that which 
 seemed to afford the only means of subsistence for 
 himself and his family. 
 
 My Lords, I may pass on without labouring the point, 
 because subsequent commissions have recognised that 
 this Act was absolutely and wholly ineffective for the 
 purposes at which it was aimed. I do not desire to 
 keep referring to the evidence of Mr, Leonard, who 
 expressed an opinion substantially to that effect. I say 
 broadly the numl)er of cases which came under its 
 intended protective provision was small, the compensa- 
 tion considered inadequate, and the general effect, upon 
 the community in Ireland, of a very limited character 
 and extent. But, my Lords, not only did it not provide 
 against arbitrary and excessive increases of rent, it 
 even excluded large classes from its j>rotective provision, 
 it afforded no protection to leaseholders. The tenants 
 and the landlords might contract themselves out of the 
 Act. And in a community, where the basis, upon which all 
 subsequent legislation has passed, has been that there was 
 no freedom of contract between the landlord and tenant 
 — that they were not dealing with one another at arm's 
 length — I need not say that they largely availed them- 
 selves of that power to contract out of the Act. Nay, 
 more, as subsequent commissions and subsequent iVcts of 
 
V HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 109 
 
 Parliament have shown, the landlords availed themselves 
 of those loopholes. Leases were forced upon the tenants 
 wholesale ; contracts were made by which the tenants 
 contracted themselves out of the Act; and, my Lords, I 
 wish to emphasise this fact, that so little was this 
 regarded as any substantial attempt to deal with the 
 grave difficulties involved in the question, that the Irish 
 members — I moan the section of them which may be 
 said to represent and be in sympathy with the Irish 
 tenant classes — so far from supporting this Bill when it 
 M'as in the House of Commons, although proposed by 
 the Liberal party, and strongly opposed by the opposite 
 party — tlie Irish members walked out of the House, 
 protesting that it was wholly inadequate for the real 
 wants of the couutry. 
 
 Tliere is one other provision and one provision only 
 in that Act to which I shall make a passing allusion, 
 and it is this. I have said that compensation was not 
 given except in cases of eviction, which is universally 
 true, and that there was no provision against arbitrary 
 and excessive increases of rent. There is one exception, 
 as I wish to be correct, which I should like to mention, 
 and that is in the case of holdings under the value of 
 £15. There was power if, in the opinion of the judicial 
 tril)una], the rent was exorbitant, to give compensation 
 upon (putting the holding. But again, that word 
 "exorbitant" was construed — I do not suggest wrongly 
 construed — in a way which deprived the clause of all its 
 protection ; for what was " exorbitant " taken to mean ? 
 — The landlord might well say the rent was not exorbi- 
 tant, because if the tenant in possession had not agreed 
 to pay it, hundreds of others would have been willing 
 to take the farm at that rent, and that therefore it was 
 not exorbitant. 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 Your Lordships will find this provision again referred 
 to in subsequent Commissions, where it is described as 
 having prevented any general application of the pro- 
 tective provisions. 
 
 So fiir up to the year 1870. During each succeeding 
 year efforts were made at land reform ; but before I 
 pass on, as I have now got the book here, I should 
 like to call your Lordships' attention to what I men- 
 tioned, but did not read, namely, the evidence of Mr. 
 Hancock, given originally in 1843, or about that 
 period, before the Devon Commission, in which he 
 says this : — 
 
 " I consider tenant right beneficial to the community because it 
 establishes a security in the possession of land, and leads to the 
 improvement of the estate without any expenditure of capital on 
 the part of the landlord. It is very conducive to the peace of the 
 country, for almost every man has a stake in the community, and 
 is therefore opposed to agrarian outrage as well as riots. The laws 
 are more respected. There are none of those reckless daring men 
 who are ready for any deed, under the consciousness that their 
 situation cannot be worse. The liberty of the subject is more 
 respected, and imprisonment has greater terrors, from the fact that 
 almost any tenant can obtain bail for his future apjjearance in court, 
 or for his future good behaviour. Tlie landlords are compelled to 
 recognise the tenant right, as, in several instances in this neigh- 
 bourhood, where they have refused to allow the tenant right, the 
 incoming tenant's house has been burnt, his cattle houghed, his 
 crops trodden down by night. The disallowance of tenant right, 
 so far as I know, is always attended with outrage. A landlord 
 cannot even resume jiossession to himself without paying it. In 
 fact, it is one of the sacred rights of the country which cannot be 
 touched with impunity, and if systematic efforts were made amongst 
 the proprietors of Ulster to invade tenant right, I do not believe 
 there is force at the disposal of the Horse Guards sufficient to keej) 
 the peace of the province. And when we consider that all the 
 improvements have been effected at the expense of the tenants, it is 
 perfectly right that this tenant right should exist ; his money has 
 been laid out on the faith of that compensation in that shape." 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 My Lords, I said that, having given that evidence 
 in 1843-44, Mr. Hancock appends to it this note in 
 1860 :— 
 
 "]\ly evidence in 1844 was prei)ared under the cadvice and with 
 the concurrence of the late Lord Lurgan, a warm and true friend 
 of Ireland, who was for 25 years in tlie possession of his 
 estates, anil as a rc^sidcnt Landlord devoted much time and money 
 to tlicur (Uwolopmciit. The evidence was well and cordially re- 
 ceived hy the tenants, and I now confirm the same after 25 more 
 years' ex[)crience, thus giving a continuous history of nearly 50 
 years on an estate in Ulster managed to the satisfaction of landlord 
 and teitajit, in which tenatit right, peace, prosperity, and progress 
 prevailed, on which all religions have ever been treated with perfect 
 equality and respect, and on which the police force numbers less 
 than half the average stationed throughout the countr}'." 
 
 In this same volume, and in reference to the Act of 
 1870, which was then in course of preparation, I have 
 to call your Lordships' attention to a very remarkable 
 piece of information. The Government of the day were 
 preparing for their legislation, and they were anxious, of 
 course, to have the best information and guidance which 
 experience and figures would give them, and accordingly 
 there was submitted to Dr. Neilson Hancock a number 
 of questions. One of those questions is this : — 
 
 "Can any, and, if any, Avhat relations be traced, county by 
 county, or district l)y district, between the number of evictions and 
 the numl)er of agrarian outrages, of threatening notices, or of other 
 indications of a like nature ? " 
 
 And his answer is this : — 
 
 " The most important relations between the number of evictions 
 and the number of agrarian outrages and threatening letters is that 
 shown by the numbers of each from year to j'oar, as presented in 
 No. 1 diagram, founded on the statistics of all the counties. The 
 corres[)on(lcncc in the general character of the curves is very 
 obvious and remarkable, the curve indicating murderous offences 
 
HISTORY OF LAND LEGISLATION 
 
 being founded not on a large average, but on individual cases, is 
 naturally more subject to sudden variations than the other curves." 
 
 And, my Lords, in tliat diagram wliicli is annexed 
 to this printed answer is a line representing evictions, 
 a curved line representing the threatening notices, a 
 curved line representing murderous offences, and tlie 
 general coincidence which Dr. Neilson Hancock ])oints 
 out, is indeed most remarkable. He is further asked, or 
 the question is further asked, in relation to the effect of 
 the Ulster tenant right customs, and he points out that 
 in Ulster, in certain defined counties — Derry, Antrim, 
 Down — the tenant right custom has almost grown into 
 the strength of law ; that in the remaining counties 
 of Ulster the claim of tenant right is made and generally 
 recognised, not invariably ; and he sets forth a remark- 
 able series of fioures showino; that in the counties where 
 this right is recognised as having practically the force 
 of law, crime is less, prosperity greater, and in the 
 counties of Ulster, where it is generally, but not 
 invariably, recognised, tlie figures of crime are greater. 
 
 This is a volume which is, of course, at your Lord- 
 ships' disposition, or at the disposition of my friends, if 
 your Lordships desire it. It is a document printed l)y 
 the Queen's printers, and compiled for the information 
 of the then Ministers of the day. Of course this is an 
 authentic record of the views of a man of very ^N'ide 
 experience on this question, as upon any Cjuestion relat- 
 ino- to the economic condition of L-eland. 
 
YI. 
 
 DISTRESS IN 1879 
 
 Now, my Lords, I come to wliat I conceive to be the state of 
 most importaut part of this case, the state of things 1379. 
 in 1879, when the Land League was established; and 
 if 1 am able to show your Lordships (and I shall rely 
 only, or almost entirely, for my present purpose, on 
 governmental or other reports of that nature), if 1 am 
 able to show your Lordships that the state of things in 
 point of actual distress was grievous, the pressure on 
 the small farming class — I am speaking principally of 
 the west and south — of an intense character, so intense 
 that the credit, upon which in previous years they had 
 practically lived, of the shopkeepers in their neighbour- 
 hood su])plying them with food, was withdrawn ; if I 
 show your Lordships that the year 1879, following the 
 two bad years of 1877 and 1878, Avas the worst year since 
 the famine of 184G, showed the lowest percentage of 
 marriages, and the highest percentage of deaths, — I think 
 I shall have disclosed to your Lordships a state of things 
 from which this conclusion is inevital)le ; that either 
 there was need and justification for a strong, open com- 
 bination of the tenant classes, for their own interests, 
 standing side by side, the weak and the strong together, 
 or that, if there had not been that strong combination, 
 there would have been a repetition on a larger and more 
 
 I 
 
114 DISTRESS IN iSjg 
 
 Banks. 
 
 grievous scale of the incidents of the tithe war of 1832 
 and 1835, a sporadic warfare over the whole country, or 
 the greater part of the country, and constant, serious, and 
 bloody conflicts with the forces of the Executive. I 
 have said that the years 1877 and 1878 were l)ad : I 
 shall prove them presently by figures to have been so. 
 I have said that the shopkeepers withdrew their credit : 
 I shall prove that by the governmental reports. 
 
 People who took a superficial view of things at this 
 very time, people ill informed, are found to point to the 
 fact that even in some of these distressed districts the 
 Savings dcposits of tlic saviugs banks and the local banks had 
 increased. My Lords, the same thing had occurred in 
 the famine of 184G. Nor is the reason fjir to seek. 
 They were not the deposits of the small wretclied 
 struggling farmers, but were the deposits of men 
 wlio in the more prosperous and healthy condition of 
 things were embarking their money in trade and cattle- 
 dealing and sho|)keeping, and lending out their money 
 to the people of their neighbourhood, advancing pro- 
 visions, lending out money ; but once trade is in this 
 way checked, once the sense of insecurity l)ecomes wide- 
 spreadj immediately there is a withdrawal of this dilfusion 
 of capital, and it must find its resting-place somewhere. 
 That was the state of thino;s in 1879. 
 
 My Lords, side by side Avith that, what was the state 
 of things with regard to landlord action ? Just as, 
 following the famine years, ejectments multiplied, and 
 threats of ejectments, so it was in 1879, 1880, 1881, and 
 1882. I shall give your Lordsliips the figures presently. 
 I have said already that it is not any part of my })ur- 
 pose to pass a wholesale condemnation upon the land- 
 lords. They suffered — unquestionably they suffered. 
 They, either from want of appreciation of their duties, 
 
DISTRESS Ii\ iSjg 115 
 
 or from want of means to enable them to fulfil tlieir 
 duties, or from a combination of both, certainly played 
 neither a patriotic nor a generous part, and if it were 
 necGSsniy to make a contrjist, I would refer your Lord- 
 slii[)ft, for it is common knowledge, to the mode in which 
 Englisli landlords met their tenants ; for the depression 
 \v1ii(*li existed in Ireland, and which was felt in great 
 intensity there, was felt in England too; felt by land- 
 lords and by tenants alike, but met in England by a 
 just appreciation on the part of tlie landlords of the 
 position ; by reductions over the length and breadth of 
 the land, reductions greater even than the forced reduc- 
 tions afterwards obtained through the instrumentality of 
 tlie Land Courts ; and a reduction, ni}^ Lords, in England 
 of 25 per cent is certainly the equivalent of at least a 
 reduction by an Irish landlord of 35 to 40 per cent. 
 The English landlord still has to have his hand in his 
 pocket, even with the smallest of rentals. But in L^eland 
 the landlords, partly from necessity, partly from want 
 of generous consideration, continued to press their 
 tenants. I am speaking of them as a ])ody, and I say 
 tliey did not meet the necessities of the case in any 
 proper spirit, or until the pressure of agitation forced 
 them to do so. 
 
 Your Lordships will, of course, understand I am 
 speaking of the body as a class — I do not mean to say 
 that there w^ere no exceptions. 
 
 ]\lay I, before I read these reports, put one view to The Three 
 your Lordships in relation to this question ? There are i,i the 
 three interests which directly depend upon and are con- ^"^^^^ 
 cerned in the cultivation of the land. There is the 
 labourer who works on it for his daily wage ; there is 
 the farmer who cultivates it, and who employs tlie 
 labour on it — in Ireland those two are commonly the 
 
1 1 6 DIS TRESS IN 1879 
 
 same, and tliere is the landlord who gets his rent for 
 the occupation of the land by the tenant. If one of 
 those three classes must go to the wall, wdiich is the 
 last that should go to the wall ? My Lords, 1 say 
 the labourer, for he is dependent on his daily wage to 
 put food into his own mouth and into the mouths of 
 his children. He must have his daily wage for his daily 
 work. It may be a reduced wage, but he must have 
 his wage. Who comes next in order ? The man who 
 tills the land — the man whose labour and expenditure 
 upon it in the shape of labour is necessary to its produc- 
 tion. He is only one degree removed from the daily 
 labourer, and in the case of Ireland and in the case of 
 the greater portion of the small farming classes he is in 
 fact by himself and his children, the labourer on the 
 land who, ordinarily, in other conditions would be the 
 daily wage receiver. My Lords, at the bottom of this 
 whole question, in the ordinary just conception of 
 Englishmen, of Irishmen, ay, and of men all over the 
 world, there is — I care not about the so-called sanctity 
 of contract — there is this principle — that rent, that the 
 true economic rent, is a fair proportion of the surplus 
 proceeds from a given farm after the daily wage of the 
 daily labourer has been paid, and after tliere has been 
 at least decent sustenance for the man, who by his own 
 hand and the hands of his children tills the land, and 
 by his labour gives it its productive power. 
 
 My Lords, that has not been the view taken or 
 acted upon by Irish landlords, or the view until of late 
 years taken by the Irish tenants. The result is that 
 the Irish tenant has been, broadly speaking (I am now, 
 of course, referring to the smaller class of farmers who 
 most need protection), reduced in his surroundings of 
 house, of clothing, of food, to a sordid condition, to a 
 
B/ST/^ESS IN iSjg 1 1 7 
 
 conditiou such that his class has been described, and 
 tridy described, as the worst clad, worst fed, and worst 
 housed on the face of the civilised globe. 
 
 Now, my Lords, there is in Ireland what is called Report of 
 tlie Jjocal Government Board — an official, governmental, Govern 
 non-representative board — and I call your Lordships' g^"*^ 
 attention to tlie reports of that l)ody. First of all, the ^r^^i isso. 
 annual report from the central authority in Dublin, 
 dated the l7th April 1880, and therefore conversant 
 Willi tlie stiite of tilings in 1870. My friend, Mr. 
 y\s([uil.li, reminds me it may be convenient if your 
 Jiordships will identify it as the eighth report under the 
 liocal Government Board (Ireland) Act, 35 and 36 of 
 the (,)ueen, I may, in passing, show figures as to the 
 relief in workhouses being greater in 1879-80 than it 
 had been in 1878-79. Greater in 1877-78 than it had 
 been in 187(3-77, showing an increase in each of those 
 three years 1877, 1878, and 1879. The same as regards 
 th(i average daily numl)cr ; as regards outdoor relief 
 the same: the number relieved greater in 1877-78 than 
 in the previous year: the number in 1878-79 greater 
 than the previous year: the number in 1879-80 greater 
 than in the previous year. 
 
 " In our report for 1878 we were called upon to report a change 
 in other directions, the average daily number of inmates being 1441 
 more tliau in the preceding year, attributable, as Ave then observed, 
 to the indifferent harvest of 1877, and to the inclemency and wet- 
 ness of the subsequent season. In our report for 1879 the average 
 diiiiy number showed nu increase of .3318 over that of the preceding 
 year, and in this report the average daily number of inmates shoAvs 
 a figure of 3952 over that of last year. The outdoor relief average 
 for the year 187 9 Avas 272 7; the average for the present year is 
 33.55 over that of last year. The following is a comi)arative state- 
 ment of the relief ofTercd, indoor nnd outdoor: February 1880, 
 59,000 ; 1879, 53,000 ; outdoor in 1880, 57,000 ; in 1879, 42,000 : 
 
ii8 
 
 DISTRESS IN 1879 
 
 Report of 
 
 Local 
 
 Govern- 
 
 nient 
 
 Board, 
 
 April 1880 
 
 total, 117,454 J in 1880, 96,1G2, or an increase of 21,000 odd in 
 the latter year. This increase in the numbers relieved does not, 
 however, indicate the full extent of the distress which has prevailed 
 throughotd the greater part of Ireland during the past winter. The 
 poor in many districts have lieen supported and provided with 
 clothing and bedding from funds supplied by the Committee of the 
 Duchess of Marlborough's Relief Fund, by the Mansion -House 
 Committee, and other charitable sources. During the month of 
 August last unfavourable reports reached us as to the state of the 
 potato crop and the supply of turf throughout Ireland, ami with the 
 view of ol)taining information on the subject, Ave directed our 
 inspectors to report to us on the state of the potato crop, the 
 general harvest, the sufficiency of the supply of turf saved b}^ the 
 peasantry for their Avants during the winter and spring, and on the 
 condition and prospects of the poor in their respective districts. 
 From this report, Avhich will be found in the appendix, it appeared 
 that the potato crop was almost everywhere deficient in quantity, 
 inferior in quality, and affected by blight, and that upon the whole 
 there was not more than half an average crop." 
 
 Your Lordsliips will find that this was a considei'al»le 
 over-estimate. 
 
 " That the general harvest Avas inferior, and that the crops, Avith 
 the exception of the oat crop, Avhich Avas good and plentiful, Averc 
 generally deficient and beloAV those in the previous year. The 
 supply of turf every Avhere was found to be insufficient, and much 
 suffering Avas anticipated from Avant of fuel." 
 
 Your Lordsliips may perhaps not realise what that 
 means. It does not mean scarcity of turf, but it 
 means that there w\as such inclemency from the 
 wet season that it was impossible to dry it — causing 
 a want peculiarly felt in the extreme west of Ireland. 
 
 " In regard to the prospects of the poorer classes there Avas 
 every reason to apprehend that there Avould be great distress in 
 certain districts and an increasing demand for relief oAving to the 
 partial failure of the potato crop and the scarcity of employment, 
 for farmers were reported to be unable to pay for labour in conse- 
 quence of their straitened circumstances, occasioned by the Ioav 
 
DlSl^RESS IN iSyg 1 19 
 
 ])rices obtained for cattle, and by the stoppage of their credit, and Report of 
 
 many of tliem were found to be ah'ead}^ deeply in debt to money- ^^^^^ 
 
 lenders and shopkeepers." mout 
 
 Board, 
 
 Then tliey proceed to a iiuiuber of considerations ^'" '' ' 
 wliicli I do not think I need tronbic your Lordships witli 
 at this moment. ]^)ut they deal with the parts of the 
 countiy as to wliich tliey apprehend the most grievous 
 distress, and i would draw your Lordships' attention 
 to the position of the counties which are specially named 
 tlierein at page 11. 
 
 " We Avcre thns alwnys cognisant of tlie extent of the poverty 
 and of the condition of the inhabitants in the distressed districts 
 as well as of the action of the boards of guardians in discharge 
 of their important functions. These special reports contain so 
 ntuch interesting information as to the state of the country that Ave 
 should have been glad to i)ublish them all in the appendix, but 
 finding them too voluminous, we have selected one report relating to 
 each union in the counties of Clare, Donegal, Galway, Iverry, Mayo, 
 and 2»<*^i"fc of West Cork, which may be considered to comprise the 
 poorest parts of Ireland, as Avell as a report of the islands on the 
 west coast of dJalway and Mayo, and wc annex extracts therefrom 
 re[)rescnting the condition of the poor in those localities at the 
 commencement of this year, omitting such portions of the reports 
 as had reference merely to matters affecting local administration. 
 ICarly in rel)ruary the mode of administering relief met with 
 further consideration from her Majesty's ({overiunent, and a Bill 
 was prepared empowering our board to issue orders in certain 
 cases, authorising boards of guardians to administer relief in food 
 or fuel for a limited time." 
 
 I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with 
 that, as 1 have to refer to the Relief of Distress Act in 
 a moment or two in another connection. Then later 
 tliey say :— 
 
 " That there has been much suffering and exceptional distress 
 in many parts of Ireland is an unquestionable fact, but Ave are 
 
DISTRESS IN iSjQ 
 
 Report of glad to be able to state that privation did not reach starvation in 
 
 Local j^j^y union, and having caused careful inquiry to be made by our 
 
 uient inspectors into every case in which it was alleged that death had 
 
 ^^^mHooa been occasioned by want," — 
 April 1880. -^ 
 
 I call your Lordships' attention to this observation 
 
 "we usually iouuA. that it had resulted from other causes Avhich 
 were clearly ascertained." 
 
 Then they proceed to give statistics, also under the 
 head of emigration, showing an increase in 1879 over 
 1878 ; showing an increase in 1880 over 1879 ; and as 
 regards admissions to the workhouse during the last 
 year {that would be 1879), ending the 29th of Septem- 
 ber, we find the total number given, 304,069 in the 
 year 1879, as against 248,102 in 1878, and as against 
 198,831 in 1877, and as against 182,749 in 187G. The 
 same as reerards outdoor relief The same as reffiirds 
 night-lodgers or casuals. I do not think there is any- 
 thing else in that to which I need call attention. 
 
 Now, as to the local reports which are referred to 
 
 there, I do not know whether the way in which these 
 
 gentlemen report the distress will affect your Lordships' 
 
 minds as it affects mine. One is the report of a Dr. 
 
 Gaiway. Eoughau. That is County Galway. 
 
 " A great diversity of opinion," says he, " exists as to the extent 
 to which distress prevails, some maintaining that it is very severe, 
 and that if people in various localities had not been relieved from 
 charitable funds, they should have either come into the workhouse 
 or have perished from want. Distress exists to a large extent 
 in the Ballinasloe and Creagh dispensary districts, but it is being 
 mitigated to a great extent by public charity, and by works which 
 are in operation on Lord Clancarty's propei'ty." 
 
 Your Lordships have heard of no crime or outrage on 
 that property. Then he mentions certain other persons 
 who are in other districts employing labour, namely. 
 
I)/S77CESS IN iSjg 121 
 
 I.ord Asliton and the Rev. Sir William Malioii. I Report of 
 iiieiition their names merely to remind your Lordships Govern- 
 that tlieirs are not cases in which outrao^es are alleged ""^"^ 
 
 O o Hoard, 
 
 to have taken place upon and in relation to their April isso. 
 property. 
 
 Dr. Ivoughan reports in relation to Galway, and in 
 relation to a part of Galway where there was a witness 
 who has been more tlian once referred to, of the name 
 of lvol)inson, who was the subject of some outrage. 
 
 "Among the many circumstances which have combined to 
 impoverish this union, a very important item is tlie cessation of the 
 ' kelp ' trade along the sea-coast. For many jears jtast the pre- 
 ])aration of this weed, largely used in the manufacture of iodine, 
 has licen the source of employment to a large class." 
 
 Then he proceeds to show how that industry had 
 gone, and continues thus : — 
 
 "The ])otato crop is below the average, and, as in every other 
 union, there has been a great depreciation in the value of stock, 
 but it is to the large graziers that this has been most disastrous, 
 and not the very poor peasantry, who are mainly dependent on 
 their supply of potatoes and their exertions at the English 
 harvest." 
 
 In that connection may I mention that Dr. Neilson 
 Jlancock, pointing out the effect upon the demand 
 for Irish laljour of the agricultural depression in 
 I^iiigland, states to the Statistical Society (I wdll give 
 your Lordships the reference in a moment) that the loss 
 to the labourers or small peasants of Connaught alone, 
 from the lessened demand f<u- labour in England, was 
 in that year, 1879, calculated at not less than £250,000 ; 
 that is, to the people of Connaught only, not including 
 otlier districts. 
 
 "It is among this latter class that destitution is most likely 
 to 1)0 felt" (that is to say, amongst the class who mainly depended 
 
DISTRESS IN 1879 
 
 Report of ^ipof^ the work of the English harvests), " but that actiuil distress 
 Local at present exists is not the case, and I may mention tliat Clil'den 
 
 I'lenV'^" li'^s recently been visited by representatives of English newspapers, 
 Board, -^vrlio, being wholly unacquainted witii the normal condition i)f the 
 ^^" people, were astonished at the state of their dwellings and general 
 
 surroundings. Hence all sorts of rumours are rife, on which too 
 much reliance must not be placed, but to-day's fair attbrded me an 
 ample opportunity of observing that the ])easantry were warndy 
 clad and evinced no signs of hunger or Avant. The coming spring, 
 however, it must be admitted, will see a large section of the peo})le 
 in very straitened circumstances, arising from the causes before 
 referred to, and aggravated by their heavy liabilities \\''\i\\ the 
 tradespeople, and the attitude they liave elected to adopt towards 
 the landlords. On their liabilities I need not enlarge ; the same 
 state of things exists to which I have alluded in the other unions ; 
 but with reference to the position they hold towards their huul- 
 lords, I regret to say that the uiuon is the theatre of almost daily 
 acts of violence." That is Clifden. "No rent has been i)aid, 
 though it is well known that a portion of the tenantry would be 
 willing to pay if they dared, and it is questionable whetlier this 
 class will be able to retain the money in their })OSsession until they 
 find that payment is enforced, the tem})tation to spend it being 
 great. Several of the landlords appear to have been anxious tn 
 meet the emergency in a fair spirit, and much employment has 
 been given ; but, notwithstanding this, they are subjected to every 
 kind of intimidation, and to overt acts of defiance, and thus the 
 country is the scene of much dissension ; the landlords, finding 
 their authority repudiated, appear determined to adopt, if necessar}', 
 rigorous measures, and some of the agents, I am informetl, are 
 instructed to issue ejectments forthwitli, while, on the other hand, 
 the peasantry show every inclination to resent the enforcement of 
 the law to the utmost." 
 
 Then Dr. Roiiglian, speaking of Galway, says : — 
 
 " I have also during the last ten days made personal and other 
 inquiries in different parts of the union, and have no doubt that 
 the general condition of the poor, especially the cottiers, labourers, 
 and artisans, is in a very much Avorse state than it has been since 
 1850. . . . The labouring classes are now entirely without cmploy- 
 ihent, and the small householders and roomkeepers living in the 
 
DISTRESS IN iSyg 123 
 
 town of Gahvay and the various small villages in the union, are Report of 
 sufTorincr intensely from the want of fuel ; it is difficult to under- ,f^^ 
 
 '^ J ' Govern - 
 
 stand how the}' arc able to hear up against it. The country people ment 
 liavc man}' I'osonn'os that arc not within the reach of those living ^°'J.-|j^gQ 
 in towns, :ind T ohsiuve no likcliliood of any organisation being 
 made by charitable persons for forming a coal or fuel fund. The 
 want is so extensive that it is felt that private charities could not 
 cope with it. The prices of provisions fortunately are not high, 
 fitirly good potatoes can l)e bought at four shillings per cwt.," and 
 so on. 
 
 He reports also from the GlenamacUly Union, and 
 says :— 
 
 "Although severe distress exists in different 2)ortions of the 
 union, yet nothing like general want exists. I have been informed 
 that there is a large amount of potatoes in the union, carefully 
 stored i;p for sale." 
 
 Tlicn from Gort Union lie reports : — 
 
 " I regret to say that much distress is felt by tlie families of 
 able-bodied labourers, and of small farmers holding indiiferent 
 land, from a rood up to five or six acres, and rented at from £3 
 to £8 i)er holding. Up to this time they have potatoes, and as 
 well as I can ascertain the supply will not be exhausted before 
 March." 
 
 He is writing at the end of January, so they have a 
 month's supply. 
 
 Then he writes of the Mount Bellew Union, also in 
 Gal way : — 
 
 " No dout)t distress, conserpient on a partial loss of the potato 
 cro}) and the stoppage of credit, does exist in many localities 
 among the cottiers and labourers holding from one rood to two 
 acres, but up to this time all have been relieved from various 
 charitable sources." 
 
 I will presently tell your Lordships what they were. 
 I'hen from Jjallinrobe, of which your Lordships have 
 
124 DISTRESS IN i879 vi 
 
 Report of heard in the course of this incjiiiry, Mr. Robinson 
 
 Local 
 
 Goveru- WriteS !— 
 
 inent 
 
 Boar.l, " Xlie extreme jioverty of the people in the several townlands 
 
 ^" 'of the parish of Rosmuck, which was the scene of my recent 
 
 inquiries, was a lamentable illustration of how people can live with 
 
 no visible means of subsistence, and this in the townland of 
 
 Camuss, was mainly noticeable." 
 
 Then he refers to the loss from the kelp trade : — 
 
 " A great part of the Rosmuck parish I am therefore convinced 
 must henceforward, for some few months each year, be in actual 
 want." 
 
 Writing from Portumna Union, which is near the 
 Clanricarde and Longhrea district, which your Lordships 
 have heard about, Dr. Roughan says : — 
 
 "As far as I can learn, very little distress exists in this union 
 beyond that usually existing at this time of the year " 
 
 (he treats it as a normal condition of things), 
 
 " except among the labourers resident in towns and villages without 
 employment, and some small farmers living on patches of land in the 
 mountainy districts. There are, of course, very many small farmers 
 who hold a few acres of bad land, in an embarrassed condition ; 
 their supply of potatoes will be soon exhausted, and, if they are to 
 be believed, they have, they say, neither money to buy nor credit on 
 which they could obtain either meal or flour." 
 
 Then he refers to some works at Meelick, on the 
 Shannon, where some employment was given. 
 
 Then from Tuam he writes, speaking of a sum of 
 money which had been received for distribution by local 
 committees : — 
 
 " The general opinion seemed to be that mucli distress existed 
 among the families of small farmers, cottier tenants, and able-bodied 
 labourers, but it was admitted, without contradiction, that up to 
 this time no dire want was felt, beyond that experienced in former 
 years " 
 
DISTRESS IN iSjg ' 125 
 
 (lie is speaking of the normal condition of things), Report of 
 
 Local 
 
 " except in individual cases, and among the labouring classes Govern- 
 lesiding in the small towns and villages in the union. There is Board 
 still a large quantity of potatoes in the county, and plenty of turf, April I88O. 
 and if the peasantry were not in debt from past years, and had not 
 lost their credit Avith baid<s and shopkeepers, they wovdd be able 
 to tide over their approaching difficulties." 
 
 Then as to Kerry, in the Cahirciveen Union, includ- Kerry. 
 ing Killarney, Mr. Power, who is the reporter in this 
 case, says : — 
 
 " From what I could gather from collectors, relieving officers, 
 guardians, etc., and also from personal observation, I should think 
 there is a considerable amount of distress in this union. The 
 workhouse, however, does not show any large increase in numbers." 
 
 I need not mention, I think, what is well known 
 pr()l)al)ly to yonr Lordships, the great and marked dis- 
 inclination which the Irish poor have to going into the 
 workhouse, and the operation of the law known as the 
 Gregory Act, by which they cannot get relief or admis- 
 sion to the workhouse if they hold more than a quarter 
 of an acre of land unless they surrender it. lie speaks 
 then of the relief from the Duchess of Marlborough 
 Fund. He says : — 
 
 "No applicants appeared at the meeting of the board which 
 Avas held in the court-house, but a large number of applicants for 
 relief on meal tickets i)rovided by the Duchess of Marlborough's 
 Fund besieged the court-house. Their appearance, I may state, as 
 a rule, was extremely miserable, and the eagerness to obtain relief 
 was very marked. Some of the women, I ascertained, had walked 
 thirteen miles to obtain relief for their families, though I should 
 say the principal part belonged to the town. ... I was told that 
 considerable distress existed at' Portmagee and Valentia Island, and 
 other sea-coast districts about Cahirciveen at present. . . . Glen- 
 beigli dispensary district is also in a distressed condition " 
 
 (that is one of the scenes <jf a number of evictions 
 
126 • DISTRESS IN iS/g 
 
 ueport of which attracted a oood deal of notice, l)eiiiQ; one of the 
 
 Local ^ 1 • X 
 
 Govern- poorcst pai'ts 01 the union), 
 
 laent 
 
 Board, " though iiowhere, as I can gather, is actual stai'vation to be appre- 
 
 Then as to Dingle, the reporter, Mr. Bourke, says a 
 
 turf famine is apprehended. This is a different union, 
 
 the Dingle Union, He goes on to say : — 
 
 " In portions of the eastern part of the union the want of fuel 
 and the very great difficulty of procuring it is as great as in the 
 district of Dunquin. I pass now to the question of potatoes. The 
 time is fast approaching when the poor will have consumed all that 
 the late Avretched harvest vouchsafed them in this particular. 
 Tales of the peoi)le re-digging their tillage in order to fiud any 
 l)otatoes left behind in the first instance come from relial)le and 
 authentic sources, and if tlie relieving officers speak the truth there 
 will be, when the seed time comes on, such a want of seed potatoes 
 as difficult to know how to meet as it is alarming in its earnest of 
 future privation and distress." 
 
 In other words, that tliey would have to eat their seed 
 
 potatoes. 
 
 " If it has been my dut)^ to report a want of employment, a 
 poverty in the supply of fuel, and a great and groAving distress 
 amongst the people in my district, I feel that, grave as the con- 
 sideration of these matters may be, they dwarf before the contem- 
 plation of the poor becoming unable to make that all -important 
 provision for the future, namely, in sowing that cro]) which is the 
 staple of their existence. In the union of Dingle the tale comes 
 that tlie people are eating their seed potatoes, and uidess i)rivate 
 charity comes to assist them in the spring, I feel that a possibility 
 exists that the M^uit of 1880 may become the famine of 1881." 
 
 He then says (and it is proper to read it) :— 
 
 " It is right to say that the resident gentry are for the most 
 part fully alive to the gravity of the situation, and are taking some 
 steps to import some of the Scotch champions into the countiy." 
 
 From Killarney anotlier gentleman, Mr. Power, in 
 this instance takes a more hopeful view. He says : — 
 
VI DISTRESS IN iSjg 127 
 
 "From what I hear I do not apprehend that at present serious lieport of 
 
 distress exists in tliis iniion, and the opinion seems to be that with f^"^'^^ 
 
 a Httle assistance the people Avill be able to get through the present luent 
 
 bad times." ^^''-^^con 
 
 April 1880. 
 
 Then as to tJic Listowel Union, which has also come 
 into this inquiry. 
 
 " It will be gathered that the numbers applying for relief at 
 this time at Listowel" (writes JMr. I'ourke) "are not excessive. 
 I'>nt, Its in all unions Avhcro no outdoor relief is giveii, the real 
 condition of the poor is not fully revealed until their very last 
 potato is exhausted, and their very last sod of turf consumed ; and 
 as the great mnjority of poor families in this union have not yet, 
 and Avill not till the end of the month, reach this point, I fear that 
 the prosi)ect in the future is not so bright as might be wished, and 
 it may yet l>ecomo my duty to report that the union of Listowel is 
 in an exceptionally destitute condition." 
 
 lie winds up thus : — 
 
 "Gentlemen, j^ou are aware that the potato crop of this district 
 was veiy small and very bad last year ; so Ijad that many small 
 farmers and <[uarter-of-acre labourers will not have potatoes in any 
 way fit to put into the ground next spring, and I have thought it 
 right to Avarn the Local Government Board, that, if another wet 
 season is before us, the condition of the people in these parts will 
 next year pass from the realms of want into the throes of famine 
 and starvation." 
 
 Again, my Lords, this is from ]\Ir. Bourke as to the 
 Tralec Union, dealing with a district your Lordships 
 have heard of before — Castlcishmd : — 
 
 " In one matter, however, the relieving officers concur, namely, 
 tliat there is a general want of fuel all through the union, and I 
 have found, in driving through the districts round Tralee, that many 
 of the cottages have not stacks of turf at all, and even those who 
 have some turf have not nearly sufficient for their requirements 
 during the winter. Tlie district of Castleisland is the worst off in 
 this respect, and they want also for potatoes and emjiloyment by 
 which to gain a livelihood. Li Ardford and its environs the 
 l)otatoes were not by any means a bad crop this year, the peo])le 
 
DISTRESS IN iSjg 
 
 Report of there having special facilities of manuring their land by means of 
 
 Govern- '^^^ seaweed which they collect. ... In the town of Traleo itself, 
 
 iiieut I think a considerable amount of distress will appear, for the peoi)le 
 
 April 1880. l^'^^ve to look entii-ely to their earnings for their support. . . . There 
 
 is no outdoor relief, or hardly any, given in this union ; and I must 
 
 say I think this is carrying the matter a little too far, for there 
 
 must constantly arise in a population of 50,000 cases in which a 
 
 little relief would enable a family, the head of which is for the time 
 
 incapacitated from work, to tide over their distress." 
 
 iMayo. Now I go to tliG couiity of Mayo. I, of course, am 
 
 selecting only those districts to wliicli your Lordships 
 will understand attention has been drawn. I might 
 amplify this. 
 
 " Ballina Union. As I anticipated in my previous report " 
 (that apparently is not given), " little or no change is up to the 
 present perceptible in the condition of the peasantry, and, excei)t 
 among the labouring classes, who are Avithout employment and have 
 neither stock nor potatoes to fall l)ack upon, I see few signs of 
 actual want or suffering, nor do I think that as yet the necessity 
 has arisen among the small tenant farmers to have recourse to 
 further applications for credit from the tradespeople." 
 
 This is Mr. Eobinson, who takes apparently a more 
 hopeful view, and who is the only one, I think, wlio 
 refers to League agitation. 
 
 " Hearing that several remote districts beyond Crossmolina had 
 been chronicled in the local newspapers as the seats of much hard- 
 ship and privation, and as it was reported to me that many of the 
 people residing there were consuming their seed potatoes, I visited 
 the locality on Saturday and Sunday, and found that there was no 
 foundation whatever for the rumours which had gained credence 
 concerning them. But it is a generally accredited fact that the 
 poorer class of farmers reverence to such a signal degree, and 
 place such an implicit reliance upon any statements that appear in 
 print, that when they find their condition described as being worthy 
 of so much commiseration, they allow themselves to believe that 
 their situation is as hopeless as it has been depicted, and I think 
 to this fact may be ascribed the ditticulty there is in acquiring from 
 
DISTRESS IN iSyg 129 
 
 the peasantry any information regarding themselves wliich may be Report of 
 accepted as really reliable. But actual distress or sufTering the J^"^^^ 
 
 . ° Goveru- 
 
 pliysical appearance of the people would at once betray, and thus ment 
 it is no very difficult matter on visiting them to ascertain at a fggi'^' 
 cursory glance the way they are circumstanced." 
 
 Til is gentleman apparently supposed that there was 
 no real distress and privation. Mr. Leonard described 
 to yonr Lordships the state of things whcji, in answer 
 to a question from me, he said, " Yes, they suffered ; 
 many of them were blue from hunger." Mr. Robinson 
 does not seem to be particularly sympathetic. I wish 
 to read this, my Lords, in order that you may see what 
 is the fair and general result. Speaking of the Ballin- 
 robe Union, he says : — - 
 
 " The cattle command a reduced j^rice ; the potato crop is 
 below tiie average ; the receipts from the English harvest were 
 disa})])ointing ; and the implied want of fuel is really applicable only 
 to the mountainous districts ; credit has been given as freely and 
 debts contracted Avitli the same readiness, and the same oblivious- 
 ness to the future here, as elsewhere ; and all the circumstances 
 nuist, before many months have elapsed, combine to effect a con- 
 siderable amount of distress. There is a wide difference, however, 
 between distress and famine, and while a pressure for relief from 
 the poorest classes may without much foresight be prognosticated, 
 it will not be so general this year, or so alarming as the visions 
 which are being conjured up by local agitators would lead one to 
 believe. I cannot but think that the most serious want will be the 
 lack of means for laying down the crops. At present the landlords 
 do not appear to be enforcing full rent except where the ability to 
 pay is undoubted ; and, as in several instances the jiooplo have 
 wholly repudiated as 3'et any claim upon them for this, they arc 
 many of them possessed of money ; but as credit is almost a thing 
 of the past, I apprehend that this ready money will be in a great 
 measure exhausted when the time approaches for the purchase of 
 the necessary materials for sowing the seed. And should these 
 apprehensions be verified, an amount of suflering must next winter 
 be anticipated, for the people will not have extricated themselves 
 
 K 
 
I30 DISTRESS IN 1S79 
 
 Report of from tlieir pecuniary embarrassment, and where this year the crops 
 p°"'^^ were bad, next year in the large proportion of cases there will be 
 
 meut no crop at all." 
 
 Board, 
 
 1 fiSl 
 
 In the Bellmullett Union he calls attention to a 
 special difficulty — to a disease among the pigs which 
 was prevailing ; and the same gentleman, writing of the 
 Castlebar Union, says : — 
 
 " With the exception of Ballinrobe " (which your Lordships have 
 also heard of), " the tenant farmers in this union are better circum- 
 stanced than those in any other of the Maj'o unions I visited. But 
 it must not be inferred from this that, although they are better 
 circumstanced, they are not as heavily involved in financial difficulties 
 as their poorer neighbours ; for a farm of four or five acres never 
 can support a large family if, like at the present time, all extraneous 
 resources have failed and credit is withdrawn." 
 
 This is the gentleman whom I have called the unsym- 
 pathetic inspector. 
 
 " Nor is it right to ascribe one of the causes of the jn-esent 
 insolvency of the small tenant-farmers to their extravagance in dress. 
 The poverty of the clothing and surroundings of the Irish peasant 
 is proverbial as being far below the standard of the peasants in 
 any other part of the United Kingdom. And if in the process of 
 time they make an effort to rise oiit of their normal state of rags 
 and squalor, it should rather be accepted as an index of the ad- 
 vancement of civilisation than as an illustration of unfortunate 
 improvidence." 
 
 Then, a little later, having made an exception of 
 Ballinrobe as being very badly olf, but the rest not 
 being so bad, he winds up thus : — 
 
 " The people in most instances have enough potatoes to last 
 them for some weeks." 
 
 This is dated January 1880. 
 
 In reference to the Killala Union, writing from 
 
DISTRESS IN iSyg 131 
 
 Ballina, which your Lordships have also heard of, he Report of 
 
 Local 
 
 says : Govem- 
 
 iiient 
 
 " I need not recai)itulate the various circumstances that have Board, j 
 
 1881 
 
 tended to impoverish the people, as I have fully enlarged on them 
 in regard to other unions, but there can be no dou1)t there Avill be a 
 great deal of poverty between Februaiy and the end of July, as the 
 credit upon whicli the poorer classes Avere wont to rely during these 
 niontlis is in a great measure withdrawii, and the harbour does not 
 afford the shelter that Avill be required for the class of boat tliat 
 could pursue a fishing avocation with securit}' ; added to which, 
 there appears to l)n little or no demand for lalwur. A succession of 
 cxceptiouidly good ycnrs would go far towards reinstating the small 
 tenant farmers in tlie position they once held, and it is more than 
 probal.)le that the warning the tradesmen have experienced Avill have 
 the effect of checking the wholesale system of credit that has proved 
 so pernicious to the country ; but the prospects of a rich harvest are 
 not very encouraging, as there will be great difficulty in procuring 
 the means of haying down the crop." 
 
 Then as to Westport, from the same gentleman, 
 there is a report to the same effect ; and a Mr. Armstrong 
 from the Swinford Union reports a large increase in the 
 distress during the last month. From the AVestport 
 Union a like report. From Kenmare the report says : — 
 
 *' From the information I can get I should say that there is a 
 good deal of distress amongst the small farmers." 
 
 This is put erroneously under the head of Cork, but I 
 ought to know Kenmare is in Kerry. 
 
 " There is a good deal of distress among the small farmers, who 
 are unable to obtain outdoor relief." 
 
 That is for the reason I mentioned. 
 
 " There is no emjiloyment in this district for the labouring 
 classes, there being few landlords, one of Avhom, I believe, owns 
 two-thirds of the luiion, but none give employment. ... As 
 employment seems to be out of the question at present, I fear there 
 
132 DISTRESS IN iSyg 
 
 Report of may be distress amongst the small farmers during the next two or 
 Local three months, but at in'esent I do not gather that it is of a serious 
 
 Govern- ^ 
 
 ment character." 
 
 1881.' Skibbereen is the next. From the Skibbereen re- 
 
 port there seems to have been a good deal of distress at 
 Drumleague, which is a phice your Lordships have also 
 heard of. From the Skull Union the same. 
 
 " Altogether there is no doubt that there is a good deal of dis- 
 tress in this district, but as yet it has not compelled the people to 
 come into the house, and I think they will remain out as long as 
 possible, especially when they can get a little help from charitable 
 sources." 
 
 Then, my Lords, there is an extraordinary report of 
 the condition of things in the Ougliterarde Union, Clif- 
 den, Westport, and Newport, and of the group of 
 islands in Kilkerran Bay. The writer, who is the same 
 Mr. Kobinson, speaks of the existence of these people as 
 a problem. 
 
 " For no one could venture to assert that the scattered patches 
 of sponge bog around which some half-dozen cabins with their 
 swarming families are gathered could ever be the means of afford- 
 ing them a livelihood." 
 
 But he says : — 
 
 " Although their })liysical appearance gives sufficient indication 
 that they are not in immediate want, there is no doubt that when 
 the present resources are exhausted, their embarrassed position will 
 preclude them from all further advances." 
 
 Speaking of a portion of Clifden, he describes the 
 houses in one of the islands : — 
 
 " The houses were bare and empty, and the clothing was scant 
 and ragged. Many of the children, indeed, had nothing on what- 
 ever, except an old red pocket-handkerchief or a patch of flannel 
 pulled over their shoulders ; and no better criterion of the genuine- 
 ness of their want could there be than the pale and emaciated 
 appearance of some of the women." 
 
DISTRESS IN iSyg 133 
 
 My Lords, I miglit pursue this subject, but you will Evidence 
 see, I tliiuk, I am justified in asserting that these reports witnesses. 
 describe, speaking generally, a state of things pointing 
 to great actual want in some districts, and tending to a 
 condition of things on the very verge of actual starva- 
 tion. And, as my friend is good enough to remind me, 
 this official account accords with — perhaps is found 
 stronger in — the evidence of some of the witnesses who 
 have been called on this point. I will refer your 
 Lordships in this connection to the evidence of Con- 
 stable Irwin, whicli will be found at pages 441 and 442; 
 of Mr. Ives, the London correspondent of the New York 
 Herald, at page 579 ; of three small farmers, called 
 Joyce, Hoarty, and Cronin, at pages 639, 657, and 750; 
 of Hughes, at page (j'Jij ] of Mr. Leonard, tlie agent for 
 the ti'ustces, amongst others, of Lord K^enmare's estate, 
 at page 595 ; of Mr. Ilussey, at page 1270 and 1279 ; 
 of Cole, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, at page 1573. 
 These are some. I can give your Lordships, with the 
 assistance of my friends, no doubt, a great many 
 others. 
 
 There is a report also, which is the ninth report of Report of 
 the Local Government Board, published in, I think, Govem- 
 April 1881, and which, therefore, deals with the state of p^"*^^ 
 tilings in 1880. issi-' 
 
 The general tenor of the local reports upon whicli it 
 is based is this — it speaks of an improved condition of 
 tliiuo-s owiuo: to a good harvest whicli occurred in that 
 year, 1880, and Mr. Burke, who was one of the reporters, 
 })robably gives the general view correctly, lie says : — 
 
 " The condition of all classes of the poor has been largely 
 ameliorated by the success of the crop and the abundance of fuel ; 
 and though the clTects of the last few years of scarcity have not 
 been removed, and the circumstances of the farming and labouring 
 
134 DISTRESS IN 187 g 
 
 classes are still straitened, they are no longer alarmingly crippled, 
 and stand in no need of exceptional assistance." 
 
 And I tliink I may say generally, without troubling 
 your Lordships with reading the whole of the reports, 
 that that is a fair indication of their general tenor and 
 purport, and I therefore will not trouble you by reading 
 them at greater length. 
 
VII. 
 STATE OF IRELAND IN 1879 
 
 Now, my Lords, at this time another importcant 
 inquiry was going on. Its history is remarkaljle. It is 
 the inquiry at the head of which the late Duke of Rich- 
 mond was pLaced, under the Royal Commission. It was 
 not originally intended to end)race apparently any in- 
 (juiry into the condition of Ireland at all. It was a 
 conunission appointed to inquire into ngricultural de- 
 pression, called the Royal Commission on Agriculture, Riciimomi 
 and as it was originally framed there was not any per- s-on'igsi. 
 son upon it supjiosed to represent what one may call the 
 Irish branch of the question. On the commission were 
 the Dukes of Richmond and Buccleuch, Lord Vernon, 
 Sir William Stephenson, Colonel Kingscote, j\Ir. Henry 
 Cha})lin, ]\Ir. Napier, ]\Ir. Paterson, Mr. Bonamy Price, 
 ]\Ir. Ritchie the present President of the Local Govern- 
 ment Board, Mr. Rodwell, Mr. Stratton, and Mr. Wilson. 
 But, my Lords, so great was the attention drawn to the 
 state of tilings in Ireland, that a kind of supplemental 
 conunission was appointed in order to comprise within 
 its inquiry the state of things in Ireland. And to the 
 commission, therefore, were added Lord Carlingford, Mr. 
 Stansfeld, Mr. Mitchell Henry, Mr. Joseph Cowan, Mr. 
 .Idlm Clay, and ]\Ir. Jolm Rice, and this newly-formed 
 commission, or tliis commission as reconstituted, ap- 
 
136 STATE OF IRELAND IN iSjg vii 
 
 Richmond poiuted Sill) -Commissioners to inquire and to report 
 Son,"i88i. to them, and those Assistant Commissioners were — 
 Mr. Thomas Bahlwin and Mr. C. llobinson. And, 
 my Lords, I would first call your attention to the 
 preliminary report of the commission itself, dated 14th 
 January 1881. I am reading it out of date, but it 
 refers back to the period I am dealing with. The 
 report says : — 
 
 " The evidence now presented is all that we have hitherto 
 taken, but it does not complete our inquiries. Under ordinary 
 circumstances we should therefore have deferred submitting the 
 same to your Majesty, but the aspect of public affairs in Ireland has 
 induced us to lay before your IMajesty the whole of the evidence 
 which we have collected, and at the same time to submit a state- 
 ment of the conclusions to which we have arrived, upon that 
 portion of the evidence which relates to that part of the United 
 Kingdom." 
 
 And tlien it points out the admitted and conspicuous 
 difference between the relations of huullord and ti;naiit 
 as they existed in Ireland and in England and Scotland. 
 
 " It seems to be generally admitted that the most conspicuous 
 difference between the relations of landlord and tenant, as they exist 
 in Ireland and England and Scotland, is the extent to which buildings 
 are erected, and the improvements are made by the tenant, and not 
 by the landlord." 
 
 Then later in the report they go on to say : — 
 
 "In common with the rest of the United Kingdom, the agricul- 
 tural depression of the years 1877, 1878, and 1879 has greatly 
 affected Ireland, and has been to some extent increased in that 
 country by the absence of manufacturing industries and other 
 sources of employment. There is no doubt that the depression has 
 fallen with extreme severity upon the small farmers. We have, 
 therefore, reason to fear that a very large proportion of these 
 farmers are insolvent, and it is stated that the bountiful harvest of 
 this year has alone prevented their entire collapse." 
 
 The date of the report becomes important — it is 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN iSjg 137 
 
 written ill 1881. Here is the statement of gentlemen Richmond 
 of liigli honour and position, but certainly not repre- sion, 1881. 
 scntative of tlie tenant class, nor members of the Land 
 Lengue in Ireland, and this is their emphatic judg- 
 ment : — 
 
 " AVe have, therefore, reason to fear that a very large propor- 
 tion of these farmers are insoh^ent," — 
 
 they are speaking in 1881 — 
 
 " and it is stated that tlie bountiful harvest of this year has alone 
 prevented their entire collapse." 
 
 That is, the harvest of 1880. 
 
 "With respect to the very small liolders in the Avestern districts of 
 Ireland, Ave are satisfied that with the slightest failure of their crops 
 the}^ would be unable to exist upon the produce of their farms, even 
 if they paid no rent. ]\Iany of them plant their potatoes, cut their 
 turf, go to Great Britain to earn money, return home to dig their 
 roots and stack their fuel, pass (lie Avinter, often without occupa- 
 tion, in the most miserable hovls. Employment at a distance, 
 always precarious, has largely failed them during the calamitous 
 season. The causes of de])ression, seriously aggravated by unfavour- 
 able seasons, and especially by thai of 1879, must be sought in the 
 peculiar circumstances and conditions of the country', as Avell as in 
 defects of the land laAvs, and tli<'y may be therefore stated as 
 follows : — 1. Inclemency of the seasons and consequent failure of 
 the potato crops. 2. Foreign competition. 3. An undue inflation 
 of credit, partly produced by the security afforded by the Land Act 
 of 1S70, and partly by a series of jn'osperous seasons. 4. Excessive 
 competition for land; the excessive; competition is oAving mainly to 
 the fact that apart from the land tliere are foAv, if any, other means 
 of subsistence for the population, and it has led to serious abuses 
 Avhich have come before your Conunissioners in the evidence they 
 have taken, such as {a) unreasonable payment for tenant right, (?*) 
 arbitrary increase of rents, (c) overcroAvding in certain districts, {d) 
 and minute subdivision of farms." 
 
 Next, my Lords, come the old suggestions I have 
 ])ointed out about tlie reason of the overcrowding of 
 particulnr districts — I am not going again to refer to 
 
138 STATE OF IRELAND IN iSjg vii 
 
 Richmond that, Tlieii come suggestions of emigration and migni- 
 siou,'i88i. tion — the hitter of which of course your Lordships under- 
 stand to mean the sending back to the now dex)0puhited 
 hmd, thousands of acres and tens of thousands of acres, 
 people from the congested districts. Emigration of 
 course means emigration abroad. Then come sugges- 
 tions as to further necessary protection for tlie tenants, 
 and they make this reference to the Encumbered Estates 
 Act, to which I have ah^eady adverted : — 
 
 "The difficulty of dealing with the subject appears to be in- 
 creased by the change of ownership, which has taken place in a 
 large portion of the soil of Ireland, under the provisions of the 
 Encumbered Estates Act. The sales under tliis Act, which gave a 
 Parliamentary title, were, it is alleged, made without regard, and 
 therefore without any protection to the occupying tenant, the 
 fee -simple of whose farm frequently passed into the hands of 
 a speculator, Avho too often sought to obtain an increase of profit 
 from his investment by raising the tenant's rent." 
 
 Then they proceed to consider the difficulties of 
 dealing with the question, and as to these they make 
 this suggestion : — 
 
 " Great stress has been laid upon the want of security felt by 
 an improving tenant, which, it is alleged, limits not only the 
 number of persons employed in agriculture, but also the cpiantity 
 of food produced for the benefit of the general community. Bear- 
 ing in mind the system by Avhich the improvements and equii)ments 
 of a farm are very generally the work of the tenant, and the fact 
 that a yearly tenant is at any time liable to have his rent raisetl in 
 consequence of the increased value that has been given to his hold- 
 ing by the expenditure of his own capital and labour, the desire for 
 legislative interference to protect \\\\\\ from an arbitrary increase 
 of rent does not seem unnatural ; and we are inclined to think that 
 by the majority of landowners legislation properly framed to accom- 
 plish this end would not be olqected to." 
 Report of 
 
 Conunh!' My Lords, the report of the Commissioners, whose 
 
 sioners. namcs I gave your Lordships as being added on tlie 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN iS7g 139 
 
 Irish Question, is even stronger. I do not know whether Report of 
 it would be convenient to hand this in without troubling commTs- 
 your Lordships with reading the whole of it. Probably ^'°^'^*'^- 
 it would. I think I can state generally its effect. Among 
 the causes of the agricultural distress they name — the 
 extreme sm;dlness of many of the agricultural holdings; 
 tlie overcrowding of population in districts of poor land ; 
 the general feebleness of industry and backwardness of 
 agriculture, caused by a sense of insecurity which, not- 
 witlislanding the Act of 1870, still prevailed, and tended 
 to ],)aialyse energy, to hinder improvement, and to pro- 
 duce too often feclinos of danoerous discontent : — 
 
 " This sense of insecurity appears to be produced to some 
 extent by the fear of capricious eviction, wliich has only been 
 partially checlvcd by the Land Act of 1870, and more generally by 
 the fear of an increase of rent, demanded, of course, as the condi- 
 tion of remaining in the holding." 
 
 Then they go on to say : — 
 
 " We find in many, and especially in large estates, the rents are 
 moderate and seldom raised, and the improvements of the tenants 
 are respected ; but we are satisfu^l that a large jtroportion of the 
 occii])iers of land are very difl'erentl}' situated, living in fear of an 
 increased demand of rent ujjon any signs of increased ability to pay, 
 and sometimes subjected to rents which do not admit of hopeful 
 industiy, and make contentment impossible. This state of things 
 is found in its worst form U}ion the })oorer tillage lands, upon the 
 snudler proi)ertics, and es})ecially, though not exclusively, upon 
 those which have come into the bands of new owners since the 
 famines of 184G and 1847, and down to the present time." 
 
 They refer also, in their report, to the use of the word 
 "exorbitant" in the Act of 1870 as having, in its 
 interpretation and in its application, failed to accom- 
 plish the purpose for wdiich it was intended, and suggest 
 the substitution of the word "unreasonable." 
 
 My Lords, still more important in this connection 
 
I40 
 
 STATE OF IRELAND IN iSyg 
 
 Report 
 of the 
 Assistaut 
 Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 is the report of the Assistant Commissioners of the con- 
 dition of things which they themselves actually saw. I 
 have already told your Lordships that that was the 
 report of Mr. Baldwin and of Mr. Robinson. It is 
 dated January 1880, and therefore relates both to the 
 state of things in 1878 and 1879. They commenced 
 their inquiries in Kerry, and they appear to have gone 
 over the greater part of the country. 
 
 "We had not proceeded far when we discovered that the agri- 
 cultural classes of Ireland are passing through a depression of great 
 intensity. As we proceeded through the remote districts of the 
 west, it became evident to us that widespread distress will soon 
 prevail among the small farmers and cottiers. Wc saw with our 
 own eyes that the supply of turf saved is unusually small, and that 
 in many places the potato, which is still the mainstay of a large 
 proportion of the people, was so light and blighted that it Avould 
 run short about Christmas, and in some places sooner. The tales 
 told us by the small farmers as to their indebtedness seemed so 
 incredible that we took the trouble wherever we could to verify 
 them by reference to the books of shopkeepers." 
 
 Then they proceed to give the result of that, and 
 point to the stoppage of credit by the shopkeepers. 
 
 "In many cases we found that the real condition of the small 
 farmers in the south and west is not known to their landlords, or 
 to the land agents, or to the very bailiffs on the estates we have 
 examined. Further inrpiiries have revealed to us that a large portion 
 of the people in many parts of the country are in a critical state." 
 
 They afterwards refer especially to Donegal, a place, 
 I am sorry to say, at tliis moment in great trouble. 
 
 " In the south and west, and even in parts of tlie nortli, a very 
 large number of the small farmers, cottiers, and even labourers have 
 lived during the summer — that is, after the potato had been used — - 
 on food obtained on credit. At the commencement of this credit 
 system it was customary to pay the debts thus contracted after 
 harvest. In good years credit was freely given, not only for meal 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN i87g 141 
 
 and flour, but for clothes and other articles. A succession of bad Report 
 harvests has prevented them from pnying up their accounts regularly. °'^ ^}^ 
 In this way debts have accumulated until many of the small farmers Commis- 
 have come to owe to the shopkeepers and others four, five, six, and ''"°°®''^- 
 even ten times the amount of their annual rent." 
 
 My Lords, if these creditors of the small farmers 
 had not shown more consideration than a large propor- 
 tion of the landlords, there would have been an absolute 
 and total collapse in the greater part of Ireland. They 
 then go on to deal w^tli one of the grievances, namely, 
 their borrowing, and having to pay usurious rates of 
 interest : — 
 
 " A series of bad years ending with the present disastrous year 
 has brought down the inflated system of credit to which we have 
 referred. Vast numbers of small farmers have found themselves 
 unable to meet their engagements as usual. AVe do not mean to 
 convey that small farmers as a class are in a bankrupt condition, but, 
 judging by what we have seen, amounting to about 15 per cent of 
 those under £8 valuation will utterly fail unless aided in some 
 way or other." 
 
 Then they go on to say that many of the great 
 landed proprietors have either made abatements of rent 
 or deferred the time of payment, and they point out, 
 what is quite true, that the condition of things was hard 
 on the landlords, who had heavy charges on their estates 
 to meet ; tliat a very large number of labourers have 
 been thrown out of employment, and that several large 
 fanners have already employed the people in making 
 estate roads and so forth. TJien they refer in detail to 
 some places, especially on the western seaboard, with 
 which your Lordships have to deal : — 
 
 " We have already visited hundreds of these farms, and found 
 tlie occupants of a large number of them in so deplorable a condition 
 that wo feel una1)lo to describe it in a way which would enable his 
 Grace to realise it fully. Over and over again we found the dwell- 
 
142 
 
 STATE OF IRELAND IN 1879 
 
 VII 
 
 Report 
 of the 
 Assistant 
 Commis- 
 sioners. 
 
 ings to contain only one apartment, in which were frequently 
 housed cattle or pigs, and sometimes both. . . . While the agri- 
 cultural depression has seriously aft'ected every class in Ireland, it 
 has told with terrific effect on the small farmers now under con- 
 sideration, and if possible, still more terrifically on a numerous class 
 in Ireland who live partly by the cultivation of small holdings and 
 partly by farm labour." 
 
 Then tliey go to tlie Land Act of 1870, and refer to tlie 
 report as to the working of that Act, and liow it had 
 failed to carry out its objects. They refer to two 
 monster meetings having been hekl at Ballyliannis and 
 BaUaghadereen, both in County Mayo. 
 
 " These places may be described as two ' head centres ' of sub- 
 division. In ordinary times a great many of the small farmers 
 near these towns are scarcely above want, and after a few hard 
 years they are on the verge of starvation and rebellion." 
 
 Then they consider the expansion of the " Bright 
 clauses," with which I am not of course at this moment 
 dealing. They describe their inquiries in cases where 
 they found the state of agriculture low, and the reasons 
 are given — the sense of insecurity. They deal with 
 cases where efforts have been made to purchase holdings 
 under the Bright clauses by paying a j^rice which 
 commissioners proclaim to be an extravagant and unreal 
 price, far beyond the proper value, and they put to some 
 of the purchasers this question : — 
 
 " In this case there is a holding which, if properly farmed and 
 managed, woxdd enable the family to live comfortably. But they 
 are weighed down to the ground by heavy instalments and usurious 
 interest. We asked why they purchased, and the answer may be 
 said to be stereotyped in the minds of the small farmers of Ireland : 
 ' Oh, sure, we Avere afraid of a bad landlord coming over us.' " 
 
 Then they wind up in this way : — 
 
 "Finding so many of the small farmers of the south and 
 west steeped in debt, misery, and poverty, while their lands 
 are undrained and neglected, we asked why they did not adopt 
 
STATE OF IRELAND IN iSyg 143 
 
 better systems of farming. Thousands upon tliousands of them Report 
 could easily double their incomes by the exercise of skill ; ^! *!'! , 
 
 •' ... Assistant 
 
 we have travelled through entire districts without seeing any Commis- 
 men at work in the digging of the ground before the winter's ^^°°^''^' 
 frost, or in preparing the land as it ought to be prepared at this 
 season for the coming crops. But the answer to our appeals on 
 both m;i,ttcrs was the same ; it affords evidence of a conviction 
 which is deeply engraved on the minds of this class, namely, that if 
 they made improvements the rents would be immediately raised in 
 conse(|uence of those iinprovements. Now, Avhatevcr view be taken 
 of this subject, the feeling remains all the same in the minds of 
 these small farmers, and it is strongest in the most backward and 
 most densely })opulated districts and on the estates of land-jobbers 
 and in those of a few absentees and other landlords avIio do not 
 take the necessary personal interest in the management of their 
 propcitics. This feeling would appear to have crushed all S2)irit of 
 ])rogross and improvement out of the minds of these poor people. 
 Tn the whole range of the heads of our itujuijy this is the most deli- 
 cate and dillicult subject. It is as significnnt ns it is suggestive 
 thnt several large landed jtroju-ietors in different jiarts of the country 
 have drawn our attention to the existence of this feeling, and made 
 to us statements which, if true, would fully justify it." 
 
 Tlieii, my Lords, they proceed to give instances, but 
 one tliey give is so striking an instance of the increase 
 of rent, and given in such detail, and after such careful 
 inquiry, that I think I ought to read it to your Lord- 
 ships. It relates to the part of Donegal which, as I have 
 said, is at this moment the seat of great disturbance. 
 
 " On many of the great estates the tenants are permitted to dis- 
 pose of their interest freely, subject to the purchasers being 
 approved by the landlords. On certain estates, for example, in 
 Donegal, whenever a, sale takes place the landlord increases the rent 
 on the new tenant 25 per cent. On visiting a small farm on one of 
 these estates in the south-west of the county, the tenant complained 
 to us thnt he and others had been subjected to several increases of 
 rent at short intervals. We give the facts as proved by the receipts 
 he handed to us. In 1851 and 1852 the rent was £4 : 13s. In 
 1853 it was raised to £G : Is. The receipts for some years are 
 
144 
 
 STATE OF IRELAND IN 1879 
 
 Report 
 of the 
 Assistant 
 Coniinis- 
 
 Mr. Fox's 
 Kuport to 
 Mausion- 
 House 
 Committee, 
 
 missing, but in 1860 the rent was £6:10:6. In 1861 it was 
 raised to £7 : 15s. In 1862, 1863, and 1861 it was £9. In 1865 
 itwas£lO: 1 : 4. In 1866 and 1867 it was £11 : 2 : 8. In 1868 
 it was £11:17:11; and in 1869, £12:13: 2." 
 
 So that from 1852 a rent of £4 : 13s. was raised to 
 £12 :13:2. 
 
 "We saw the agent, who stated that in 1867 a valuator went 
 over the estate with a view of re-adjusting tlie rents, and that this 
 gentleman vahied the holding at £12 : 13:2, and that the rent was 
 raised by a series of increments, as shown in the receipts. This 
 explanation was never given to the tenant. We devoted an entire 
 day to an examination of this estate. The agent told us that he 
 has been able to collect vei*y little of this year's rent, and he 
 expressed his belief that the greater number of the tenants are 
 wholly unable to pay it. The tenants on this estate whom we 
 have visited are, like many of those in other localities, in a deplorable 
 state. They are steeped in debt, and their credit is gone." 
 
 My Lords, that is not the language of men described 
 by the prosecutors in tliis case as interested, self-seeking, 
 political agitators. This is the grave language of men 
 officially employed for a public purpose — gravely re- 
 porting what has come under their own observation. 
 
 I should like to supplement this by a statement also 
 of an eye-witness, who can, if needful, be called before 
 your Lordships at a later stage of this inquiry, a gentle- 
 man well known in Dublin, who went to perform the 
 humane part of examining, with a view to reporting to 
 one of the several relief committees which were formed, 
 and which existed for the relief of distress in 1879 and 
 1880. It is the report of Mr. Fox to the Mansion-IIouse 
 Committee on the condition of things in Mayo in 1880, 
 my Lords. 
 
 " I have taken " (says Mr. Fox) " the precaution of seeing with 
 my own eyes many of tlie recipients of relief in their miserable 
 hovels " (this is in Mayo), " which, so far as I have yet observed, 
 are a shocking reproach to the civilisation of the nineteenth century. 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN iSyg 145 
 
 ... I do not believe that tongue or pen, liowever eloquent, Mr. Fox's 
 could truly depict the awful destitution of some of those hovels. ][^°P°^* *" 
 
 "^ ^ _ Mansion- 
 
 The children are often nearly naked. Bedding there is none, every- House 
 thing of that kind having long since gone to the pawn-office, as ^"'"""'^*'*'^- 
 proved to me hy numerous tickets placed in my hands for ins})ec- 
 tion in well-nigh every hovel. A layer of old straw, covered by the 
 dirty sacks which conveyed the seed potatoes and artificial manure 
 in the sjuing, is the solo provision of thousands, with this exception, 
 that little babies sleeping in wooden boxes are occasionally indulged 
 with a bit of thin old flannel stitched on to the sacking. Men, 
 Avomen, and children sleep under a roof, and within walls dripping 
 with wet, while the floor is saturated Avith dam)), not uncommonly 
 oo7;ing out of it in little pools. In one case I asked a gaunt, starved- 
 looking man, Avhom I found literally endeavouring to sleep aAvay 
 the hunger, Avhere his little children slept, when he pointed to a 
 corner in the moist room in which 1 could see no sign of bedding. 
 ' Do they Avcar their clothes at night ? ' — ' No.' — ' Hoav then do they 
 keep Avarm 1 ' — ' There is,' he replied, with the most amazing sim- 
 plicity and composure, 'a deal of AA'armth in chiklren,' signifying 
 that they obtained Avarmth by huddling together like little animals. 
 This occurred at Carrycastle. ... I invariably found them on the 
 occasion of my visit crouching round the semblance of a fire lighted 
 on the open hearth. And this at midsummer — shoAving how terribly 
 loAV must be the vitality amongst them. . . It AA'as only Avhen I 
 Avas accompanied by a Catholic priest I could get an insight into 
 the ap[)alling Avant. Alone, some of the most destitute tried to 
 screen from me the poverty of their truckle beds, upon Avhich the 
 straAV Avas often so thin that I could touch the bare boards Avith my 
 hands. These received me Avith a dull, passive sur})rise, AA'ondering 
 Avhat nu'ght be the ol)ject of my curiosity in so Avretched a countrj^ 
 And even the priest himself had occasionally to use no little per- 
 suasion to overcome this modest feeling, by assuring them that I 
 Avas present in the cai)acity of a friend. EveryAvhere the condition 
 of the children AA^as otherAvise ilreadful, there being for them nothing 
 but the Indian meal, badly cooked, to live upon, and the parents 
 only too glad if the charitable funds provided the family Avith half 
 enough even of that. Sometimes there Avas a miserable coav about 
 the i)remises, for in every case I am referring to, the class of small 
 farmers mostly resided on three to five acres of land, Avhich in 
 Mortli Mayo is generally found to bo reclaimed bog or mountain 
 
 L 
 
146 STATE OF IRELAND IN iSjg vii 
 
 Mr. Fox's slope j and this cow was supplying milk, principally gratis, to a 
 
 Report to ^-^^^ number of children other than the owner's, to mix with the 
 
 Mauaiou- 
 
 House Indian meal. Occasionally people appealed privately to my com- 
 
 Conimittee. p^^j^JQj^ qj^ j^q account to cut off the charitable supplies from the 
 possessor of the cow, seldom worth more than a few pounds, and 
 just then unsaleable in any market, as the animal was the hope of 
 so many little ones. At other times cooked cabbage, without a 
 morsel of condiment save salt, was found where there was no meal, 
 and in some instances one was found mixed with the other. But 
 in numerous cases there was neither milk, meal, nor cabbage aboiit 
 the premises, and in those I gave some temporary relief to lill \ip 
 the interval till the next general distribution of the local committee. 
 Sometimes even charity itself had failed, and the motlicr of the 
 tender young family was found absent, begging for the loan of some 
 Indian meal from other recipients of charitable relief — the father 
 being in almost every instance away in England, labouring to make 
 out some provision for the coming winter. Yet in the most des- 
 titute cases hardly a word of complaint was uttered on the subject, 
 it being a habit with, if not the nature of, the Mayo peasant sub- 
 missively to ascribe his lot in times of scarcity as well as plenty to 
 the ' will of Providence.' We visited more than thirty hovels of 
 the poor, principally in the townlands of Culmore and Cashel, in 
 which I beheld scenes of wretchedness and misery wholly inde- 
 scribable. In some of those hovels evicted families had lately taken 
 refuge, so that overcrowding added to the other horroi-s of the 
 situation. In one hovel in the townland of Cashel we found a little 
 child three years old — one of a family of six — apparently very ill, 
 with no person more comjjetent to watch it othur than an idiot 
 sister of eighteen, while the mother was absent begging committee 
 relief, the father being in England ; in another an aged mother, also 
 very ill, lying alone and unattended, with nothing to eat save long- 
 cooked Indian meal, which she was unable to swallow ; in another, 
 in the townland of Culmore, there were four young children, one of 
 whom was in a desperate condition for want of its natural food — 
 without Avhich it was no longer capable of eating the Indian-meal 
 stirabout, or even retaining anything whatever in its stomach." 
 
 I should like to add to this the account of one other 
 person, and to take this account from the columns of 
 The Times. It is the testimony of a man now lost to 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN iS79 H7 
 
 liis country, a man lield in high esteem and admiration 
 for his courage and tlie generous impulses of humanity 
 which moved him — I mean the hite General Gordon. General 
 lie visited this country, the district which we are ^°^*^°°- 
 speaking of, on the 3d December 1880. 
 
 "I hivvG lately been over the south-west of Ireland, in the hope 
 (if discovering how some settlement could he made of the Irish 
 (juestion, whi(;h, like a fretting cancer, eats away oiu" vitals as a 
 nation. I have come to the conclusion that, first, a gulf of antipathy 
 exists between the landlords and tenants of the north-west and 
 west, and the south-west of Ireland. It is a gulf which is not caused 
 alone ]>y the (juestion of rent ; there is a complete lack of sympathy 
 between the two classes. It is useless to inquire how such a state 
 of things lias come to pass. I call your attention to the pampldets, 
 letters, and speeches of the landlord class as a jn'oof of how little 
 sympathy or kindness there exists among them for the tenantry, 
 and 1 am sure that the tenantry feel in the same way towards the 
 landlords. Second, no half-measure Acts which left the landlords 
 with any say to the tenantry of those portions of Ireland will be of 
 any use. They would l)c rendered, as past Land Acts in Ireland 
 have been, quite abortive ; for the landlords will insert clauses to do 
 away with their force. Any half -measures will only jdace the 
 Government face to face with the people of Ireland as the champions 
 of the landlord interest." 
 
 He then, my Lords, suggests a scheme very nmch 
 like the scheme Avliich is supposed to be the policy of 
 the jirescnt Government, and which was a policy first 
 indicated by the Land League, as I shall presently show 
 your Lordships. Then he goes on — 
 
 "In conclusion, I must say from all accounts, and my own 
 observation, that the state of our fellow-countrymen in the parts I 
 have named is worse than that of any people in the world, let alone 
 Europe. I believe that these people are made as we are, that they 
 arc i)atient beyond belief, loyal, but at the same time bioken-sjtirited 
 and des])erate, living on the verge of starvation in places in which 
 we would not keep our cattle. ... I am not Avell oil", but I would 
 oiler " 
 
STATE OF IRELAND IN 1879 vn 
 
 He does not mention the landlord's name, and I will 
 not. 
 
 "or his agent £1000 if either of them would live one week in one 
 of these poor devil's places and feed as these people do. Our comic 
 prints do an infinity of harm by their caricatures ; firstly, the 
 caricatures are not true, for the crime in Ireland is not greater than 
 that in England ; and secondly, they exasperate the people on hoth 
 sides of the Channel, and they do no good. It is ill to laugh and 
 scoff at a question Avhich afiects our existence." 
 
 My Lords, I had not at the moment tlie reference 
 Lord John 1 intended to make to a speech of Lord John Russell, 
 Russell. ^r}iich I do not intend to nse except for a definite 
 purpose. It was in a debate after the report of the 
 Devon Commission was fnlly before the House, and I am 
 reading from Hansard under the date of the 15th June 
 1846. After giving a good many instances in the evi- 
 dence, he summarises the result of the evidence thus : — 
 
 " However ignorant many of us may he of the state of Ireland, 
 wo have hero the best evidence that can bo procured, the evidence 
 of persons best acquainted with that country, of magistrates for 
 many years, of farmers, of those who have been employed by the 
 Crown ; and all tell you that the possession of land is that which 
 makes the diiferenco between existing and starving amongst the 
 peasantry, and that therefore ejections out of their holdings are the 
 cause of violence and crime in Ireland." 
 
 And he gives some figures and dates with whicli I 
 have not troubled your Lordships, because although I 
 am afraid I have gone into a good many figures, I have 
 avoided a great many I might have given. iUit he gives 
 these figures, which are ratlier remarkable. He is dis- 
 cussing the possil)]e or probable effect of one of the 
 many coercion bills which have been applied to the state 
 of disturbance in Ireland. I will only trouble your 
 Lordships with one sentence. 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN iSyg 149 
 
 "The numl)cr of homicides in 1832 before the introduction of 
 what was called the Coercion Act, Avas 242; in 1837, 230; in 
 1840, 125 ; in 1842, lOG; in 1845, 139." 
 
 lie gives also corrcRpoiidiiigiy large figures in regard 
 to tlie crime of attacking houses with whicli I will not 
 trouble your Lordships. I merely call attention to those 
 with reference of the question of murder. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I have to call attention to some 
 remarkable figures which durino; the evidence have been 
 glanced at, but not given in full l)efore your Lordships 
 as to tlie state of thinos in these years 187G, 1877, 1878, 
 and 1879. First of all I give your Lordships the potato The Potato 
 crop, and for these figures I refer in each case to the '^°^'" 
 statisti(;al returns compiled by the Registrar-General in 
 Ireland, and published by his authority — Dr. Grimshaw. 
 In 1870 the potato cro[) was 4,154,784 tons, valued at 
 £12,404,382 sterling. In 1877 the yield fell to 
 1,757,274 tons, equal to £5,271,822 sterling. In 1878 
 the yield was 2,526,504 tons, equal in money to 
 £7,579,512 sterling. In 1879 it fell to 1,113,070 tons, 
 equal in money to £3,341,028 sterling: in each of the 
 four years the value is calculated on a price of £3 per 
 ton. The year 1870 is admitted to have been a good 
 year. Probably it would be just to say it represented a 
 high average of good years, but comparing those figures, 
 that is to say, the value of the potato crop in 1876, 
 which was £12,404,382, deducting from that the value 
 of the crop in 1879, which was £3,341,028, there is 
 a, loss on that comparison as regards that one crop 
 of no less a sum than £9,123,354 sterling— a sum 
 which represents, if I am rightly informed, more 
 than three-quarters of the entire agricultural rents 
 of Ireland 1 But the figures are still more striking 
 if you take the oeneral crops. Again, I am taking (General 
 
 J " J- tj Crops. 
 
GiimsLaw. 
 
 150 STATE OF IRELAND IN iSjg vir 
 
 . the figures from tlie same authority. In 187G tlie 
 general crops were worth £36,000,000; in 1877, 
 £28,000,000; in 1878, £32,000,000; in 1879, 
 £22,000,000. So that again, taking the yield in 187G as 
 the datum, there is a loss in 1877 of £8,000,000; in 
 1878 of £4,000,000; in 1879 of £14,000,000 ; making 
 the enormous total of £26,000,000, or more than double 
 the entire agricultural rents. 
 
 o 
 
 I have already mentioned one fact, which I also 
 Dr. obtain from Dr. Grimshaw. Addressing the Statistical 
 
 Society in Dublin, he refers to this year, 1879, and he 
 points out what would be, of course, obvious to your 
 Lordships, that tlie fidl force and effect of a disastrous 
 year like 1879 is not felt in that year, but mainly in the 
 succeeding year. Its effects may even last beyond 
 that. He uses this language :— 
 
 "Now let us look at the year 1879. First, let us examine the 
 yield of the crops. Wheat was only 1100-4 per acre, a yield far 
 below the average. The yield of oats also was very low ; but 
 when we come to the staple food of the country we find that the 
 yield of potatoes in 1879 was the lowest on record, namely, 1'3 
 tons per acre. Tlie death rate in 1880 was the highest on record, 
 and the marriage rate the loAvest on record. We learn from these 
 examples that the prosperity of Ireland and the number of her 
 people have hitherto been largely dejjcndent upon one agricultural 
 product. The other agricultural products, no doubt, are of national 
 importance, but the potato, nevertheless, is the regulating factor. 
 The production of cereals would bear a similar relation to the pros- 
 perity of England, but for the simple reason that other forms of 
 industry are relatively of more vital importance to England than 
 agriculture. This is the reason why the depression of agriciilture 
 has produced diminished population in Ireland, while in England as 
 great a depression is still accompanied by increasing ])opiilation. 
 Urban industrial centres do not exist in Ireland in the same pro- 
 portion, and therefore the total population of Ireland cannot be 
 maintained by the compensating power of urban prosperity when 
 rural employment becomes depressed." 
 
VII STATE OF I RE LA ND IN iSjg 1 5 1 
 
 He tlicii proceeds to give some very striking figures 
 l)eariiig upon the clearance question, which I have 
 already adverted to. 
 
 " It appears that tlio acreage under cereal crops lias fallen from ClenraTices, 
 3,099,000 in 1851 to 2,025,000 in 18G1, to 2,124,000 in 1871, 
 and to 1,777,000 in 1881." 
 
 80 that tlie extent to whicli the Land has fallen out 
 of araltlc cultivation between the years 1851 (it would 
 be still more striking if one went back to a year or two 
 earlier) and 1881 is the difference between 3,099,000 in 
 1851, and 1,777,000 in 1881. The total number of 
 acres under meadow and clover he also gives. In 1851, 
 1,246,000 acres; in 1801,1,546,000 ; in 1871, 1,829,000, 
 and in 1881 over 2,000,000. And he then proceeds to 
 show tliat if the estimate of pasture land in 1841 was 
 tolerably correct, you find that between the years 
 1841 and 1881 pasture lands have increased from 
 7,941,000 acres in 1841 to 10,075,000 in 1881. 
 
 At a later stage 1 shall have to refer even to another Harvest 
 commission, which again throws liglit back upon the England." 
 period with wliicli 1 am dealing ; but I am anxious not 
 to dislocate tlie dates more than is unavoidal)le. I have 
 already mentioned (and I now give the authority for it) 
 that Dr. Neilson Hancock estimated in his statement 
 before the Statistical Society in February 1880 that tlie 
 loss to ConnauD-ht alone from the lessened demand for 
 harvest labour in England amounted to the labourers of 
 that province alone to £250,000 in that one year, 1879. 
 My Lords, that story of the efforts made by these small 
 holders of land to keep tlieir holdings and pay their rents 
 is a remarkable story of frugality and self-denial. These 
 poor creatures, leaving their wives and cluldren to come 
 to this country and subsist, Cod knows ]iow, manage to 
 bring 1)ack, only as the fruits of the strictest frugality. 
 
152 S7'A TE OF IRELAND IN iSyg 
 
 the money which goes towards paying the hmdlord's rent, 
 which certainly never was made out of the hmd. 
 
 Now, my Lords, what were the Government doing 
 at this time ? Was attention called to this ? What was 
 the action of the Government ? I have to refer to one 
 gentleman for whom I have personally great respect in 
 every regard except in his character (I must say so) of 
 a statesman. In February 1880 that gentleman, Mr. 
 Lowther, was Secretary for Ireland. ]\lr. Shaw, who was 
 then a leading member of the Irish Parliamentary party, 
 addressed to him in the House of Commons a question 
 as to whether the Government were going to do anything 
 upon the question of land reform. It took a very mild 
 form of interroffiition : whether or not there mi<'ht not be 
 an extension to the rest of Ireland of that security which 
 tenant im\\t scave in Ulster ? The answer of the Minister 
 of the Crown was that he had before said, and he was 
 then prepared to maintain, that to extend the Ulster 
 custom to the rest of Ireland would be pure and un- 
 diluted communism, and when pressed as to the state of 
 Ireland he said the Land Question had nothing to do with 
 the state of Ireland, but was the work of other agencies. 
 Nothing was at that time done, and Ireland had to 
 appear again in the humiliating character of a mendicant 
 before the world ; for recollect, my Lords, the famines in 
 Ireland differ, as I reminded your Lordships yesterday, 
 from the famines of Egypt or the famines of India, 
 because at this very time (of course it can be illustrated, 
 and I can prove it if it be challenged), there was being- 
 exported from Ireland in cattle — ay, and in corn, more 
 than would have sustained the population three-fold. 
 Relief Then was started (all credit to them for it) a number 
 
 of charitable funds in Dublin ; the Mansion-IIouse Fund, 
 the fund which owes its name to the interest which the 
 
 Funds. 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN 1S79 153 
 
 Duchess of Marlborougli, tlie wife of the then Lord 
 Lieutenant, benevolently took in the matter ; the fund 
 collected through the agency of the Neiv York Herald; 
 the fund collected at the instance and by the influence 
 principally of Mr. Parnell upon the occasion of his visit 
 to America. I am not going to follow that part of the 
 American story, because I intend to reserve it for separate 
 and distinct treatment. I pass that by in the course of 
 my narrative upon this point, because, as your Lordships 
 are aware, I am dealing with the point now of whether 
 tJie state of things in 1879 was not literally such, as I 
 have said, that it called for, failing the strong interven- 
 tion of the Government by exceptional measures, a strong 
 protective agitation and combination amongst the tenant 
 class themselves ; and if that were wanting, the only 
 alternative was sporadic, bloody warfare in various parts 
 of the country. 
 
 My Lords, a little later (I am still throwing light 
 back upon the state of things in 1879) there was a 
 change in the Government ; and the Government of 
 1880 had the matter forced upon their attention. Mr. 
 Forster was then the Minister for Ireland who had suc- 
 ceeded Mr. Lowther. I cannot mention Mr. Forster's 
 name without saying that I believe that no man ever 
 went to Ireland with a sincerer resolve, humanely, justly, 
 and thoroughly to discharge his public duty ; but, un- 
 happily, like every other man who has gone to Ireland 
 on like missions, he finds a system which is too strong for 
 him. He has not the control of the system ; the system 
 controls him. His position is one of absolute isolation 
 from popular touch or contact, and from sources of 
 popular information. My Lords, the form which the 
 action of the Government took was this. They brought 
 in a bill of an exceptional character, one which I thought 
 
154 
 
 STATE OF IRELAND IN 1S79 
 
 Compensa- 
 tion for 
 Disturb- 
 ance Bill, 
 1880. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 Forster. 
 
 and said at tlic time (for I took some part in its dis- 
 cussion) required very exceptional circumstances to 
 defend or to justify it. It was known, as your Lord- 
 ships are probably aware, by the name of the Compensa- 
 tion for Disturbance Bill. Its function and objects were, 
 in respect of a certain class of the smaller tenancies, 
 limited to a particular part of the country, the same 
 part with which your Lordships are dealing — the dis- 
 tricts scheduled as distressed districts, Galway, Mayo. 
 Cork, Kerry, Clare — parts of these — there were some 
 others in addition. The object was upon tlie payment 
 of a half of one year's rent, to stay all eviction processes 
 at the instance of the landlord for a certain definite 
 period. That proposition was originally made by one 
 of the members of the Lish Parliamentary party, Mr. 
 O'Connor Power, a member of the English bar. He 
 may be known to some of your Lordships. Mr. O'Connor 
 Power would not be ashamed if it were necessary to tell 
 your Lordships, that he is one of those hot-headed and 
 impulsive young men who in 1865-6G saw no hope from 
 constitutional agitation and from Parliamentary efibrt, 
 and who joined the ranks of the Fenian body. He, 
 nevertheless, afterwards became in Parliament an im- 
 portant ally in the useful discussion of questions directly 
 and intimately affecting Ireland. Mr. Forster moved the 
 second reading of this bill on the 25tli June 1880, and 
 this bill, which I am now about to explain to your liOrd- 
 ships, was founded upon a bill prepared, in the interests 
 of peace in Ireland, by the Land League, whose action is 
 here denounced. It was their bill taken up by the 
 Government after Mr. O'Connor Power had, as one of 
 
 the Land League, introduced it. Mr. Forster in moving 
 explains its principle — that there is a limitation of time, 
 a limitation of area ; that it is limited to the end of the 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN iS7g 155 
 
 next year, wliicli would be 1881, and to the area of 
 those districts which are scheduled as distressed ; and 
 then he proceeds to explain its provisions. I have the 
 hill here. Unhappily it never became law, as your 
 Lordships will presently hear. 
 
 "The ])io]iosnl is liinitcd " (ho says) "to tho scheduled unions, 
 fj;onovo]ly speaking to tlio western half of Ireland ; hut there is, practi- 
 cally, another Ihnitation — that is, it is limited to those unions outside 
 Ulster and outside of tho districts where Ulster tenant right exists." 
 
 Then he explains the reason why. lie says that the 
 tenant who has the benefit of the Ulster tenant right 
 custom would of course l)e in a very much better position 
 than anything this Act would give him. Then he pro- 
 coeds to explain what the jiroposal was. It was this : — 
 
 "That if in the distressed districts, and during this year of distress, 
 it shall ap})ear to the county court judge, the official to whom these 
 • juestions are referred, — if it shall ap})ear, first, that the tenant is un- 
 able to pay his rent; secondly, that he is unable to do so on account of 
 the distress arising from the l)ad harvest of this and the two previous 
 years ; thirdly, that he is willing to continue in his tenancy on just and 
 reasonable terms as to rent, arrears of rent, and otherwise ; and 
 fourthly, if those terms arc unreasonably refused by the landlord, 
 then and then only can he obtain such compensation as the court 
 may tliinlc just under the third section of the Land Act of 1870." 
 
 I was wrong in saying one of the conditions was the 
 payment of a dclinite i)roportion of rent. That was left 
 to the determination of the judges. He then, in justifi- 
 cation of this proposal, cites in reference to the distress 
 the opinion of a gentleman who has taken a great and 
 praiseworthy interest in this matter, I mean Mr. Tuke, 
 and, after he has gone through the story of the distress, 
 ]\[r. Forster proceeds : — 
 
 " Now, you may say, with these facts before you, Avhy did you 
 not bring in this bill at the beginning of tho session ? You knew 
 the distress. You knew tho meaning of the Land Act. You knew 
 
156 STATE OF IRELAND IN i879 vii 
 
 the relative positions of the Ulster tenant and the non - Ulster 
 tenant. Well, we did not do so because we hoped that we nught 
 put oft' legislation until we had all the facts before us and knew how 
 the Land Act was working, and then we might bring it before the 
 House and inquire how far it required amendment. Then, it may 
 be said, if you did not bring it in then, Avhy have you brought it in 
 now % Well, for this reason, that we find we could wait no longer. 
 Evictions Facts are accumulating upon us. Evictions have increased and are 
 111 1879-80. increasing. I have liere the figures as to the evictions the consta- 
 bulary have had to conduct. They are not all that have been 
 effected, only those in which the aid of the constabulary has been 
 required, and I deduct from them all the cases where the evicted 
 ' tenant has been readmitted ; this list, moreover, has nothing to do 
 with process-serving. The average evictions for the five years end- 
 ing in 1877 was 503 for each year; in 1878 the number was 743 ; 
 in 1879 it was 1908 ; and up to the 20th of June of the present year 
 it was 1073." 
 
 Or in other words it had nearly doubled in 1880. And 
 referring to one case in Galway he says : — 
 
 "I take the case of the West Eiding of Galway. Since the 
 1st of January in this year the number employed in protecting 
 process-servers has been 107 officers of constabulary and 3300 
 men, and 16 officers and 626 men in carrying out actual evictions." 
 Then he proceeds and concludes his statement thus : " On our 
 part we are forced to declare " (speaking for the Government) 
 "that the responsibility of not permitting this temporary, and, as 
 we conceive, this necessary modification of the law, must rest ui)on 
 Parliament and not upon us." 
 
 My Lords, I do not refer to a part of that speech in 
 which he makes an appeal to members of the Irish party, 
 to nse their inliuence to keep down outrage. It is not 
 in connection with the subject which I am now upon. 
 I refer to it merely to show that I have not })assed it 
 over. I shall recur to that subject again. 
 
 The House of Commons passed that bill. It was an 
 exceptional bill, only to be justified by grave exceptional 
 circumstances, and in point of fact by the interests of 
 
vii STATE OF IRELAND IN iSyg 157 
 
 the peace of the community. It went to the House of Compensa- 
 Lords. Amongst its defenders there, was a distinguished the°Lords'" 
 person not remarkable for an over-abounding sympathy 
 with the Irish tenant cL^ss ; a man, I have not the least 
 doul^t, of thoroughly humane instincts ; a man who has 
 never been al)le to realise, and does not understand the 
 complex character of the Irish question : I mean the Duke Duke of 
 of Argyll. I [e defended this bill in the House of Lords, "^'^y"' 
 and I will en 11 your Lordships' attention to some things 
 wliicli he said. The date was the 3d of August 1880. 
 Amongst other things he says : — 
 
 "My noble friend behind me (Earl Granville), in moving the 
 second reading of this bill, said it was a very delicate thing to 
 mention such cases, because we might be holding up individuals to 
 odium and possibly outrage." 
 
 That was in reference to the statement of the re- 
 newed evictions and of the fact, as the Duke of Argyll 
 puts it, that the Government had to consider a popula- 
 tion of small tenants numberiuff 500,000 who were 
 actually, these are his words, " at the mercy of the 
 landlords of Ireland." Then he goes on to say : — 
 
 " The House will feel, therefore, that the members of the Govern- 
 ment speak under great reserve of these matters ; but I must say 
 frankly that there have been some cases in which individual land- 
 lords have shown a disposition to make wholesale evictions for 
 non-payment of rent, where that non-payment was clearly due to 
 the failure of crops. There was one case which became jjublic in 
 the newspapers, and which I have, therefore, the less delicacy in 
 mentioning. I do not know even the name of the landlord, but 
 I rather think he was a purchaser in the Encumbered Estates 
 Court, lleforc I mention this case in detail, I wish to make a 
 single observation Avith regard to a distinction sometimes drawn 
 between landlords who have bought their estates in the Encumbered 
 Estates Court." 
 
 I need not trouble your Lordships with tliat part of 
 
158 STATE OF IRELAND IN iSjg vii 
 
 it. Then lie mentions tliis instance from a place called 
 Curraroe, in the county of Gal way, which is the scene 
 of some of the crimes into which your Lordships have 
 had to inquire : — 
 
 " On the whole townUmd there were 89 tenants with families 
 numbering in the Avhole 515 souls. The rent was £137 : 7s., or about 
 30s. each. They were of the smallest class of occupiers. There were 
 1334 acres in the townland, of which 110 were aral)le, under crop. 
 The whole stock of the farms consisted of only four horses, 110 
 cattle, G2 sheep, and 14 pigs. The total valuation of the stock 
 and crop — everything — was £1423, or about £2: 153. for every soul 
 in the townland. One-twelfth of the acreage was arable. I think 
 that was a case clearly in which the tenantry Avere so reduced, as 
 you may see from the valuation of their stock and crop, that it was 
 impossible they could pay their rent after the three years of the 
 worst harvests we have had for a long period. In this case notices 
 of eviction Avere served, I rather think, in the time of the late 
 Government, but Avere enforced, or attempted to be enforced, by, I 
 believe, only 20 men. Tliere Avas a general resistance to the service 
 of those ejectments ; and since Ave came into office the Irish GJovern- 
 ment had to reinforce the police in the place to the extent of 200 
 men. You had in that case at the mercy of the landoAviier a Avhole 
 population of upAvards of 500 souls, Avho, under the cxi.sting kiAV, 
 Avould have been evicted Avithout one shilling of compensation, Avithout 
 one shilling to carry them to America, because they were evicted 
 for non-payment of rent. What is the significance of these facts'?" 
 
 He proceeds to say what was the duty of the 
 Ministry, and urges upon them to persuade the House, 
 as a matter concerning the Queen's peace, the necessity 
 of passing that l)ill. 
 
 My Lords, that l)ill was rejected in the House of 
 Lords by an enormous majority. I think I am riglit in 
 saying that the attendance in the House of Lords upon 
 the occasion of this bill exceeded any attendance that is 
 recorded in the journals of that House, except upon the 
 occasions of great party divisions. 
 
STATE OF IRELAND IN iSyg 159 
 
 My Lords, a Relief of Distress Bill was passed in Relief of 
 Marcli ill the session of 1880. What was the form it S.'So. 
 took ? The form it took was advancing to Irish land- 
 lords £1,100,000 of the surplus funds of the dis- 
 estal)]ishcd Church in Ireland, to lend that money to Irish 
 landlords without interest for two years, and at the end 
 of two years at the rate of one per cent ; and, unless 
 numbers of landlords are gravely maligned, when they 
 employed their tenants and paid them w\ages out of this 
 fund for working upon their own farms (which wages 
 went towards payment of rent), those tenants were 
 charged in some cases four and five and even more per 
 cent, and tliat in perpetuity, on the very money 
 advanced by the State for their relief, thus getting the 
 relief filtered throu<T;h the hands of the landlords in this 
 indirect and very ineflective fashion. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, is it remarkable that those interested, the 
 representatives of the Irisli people, should in this con- 
 juncture of things feel alarmed for the future? Is it 
 rcmarkal)le that there should again be conjured u^) in 
 the minds of the people the dread of the recurrence of 
 those nameless scenes of horror, the memory of which 
 hung like a dark cloud over the recollections and the 
 lives of tlie people who had taken part in those scenes, and 
 who had suffered in them ? I am unable, and I will not 
 attempt to give a picture of those scenes. The nameless 
 graves, members of one family thrust into unhallowed 
 ground, the fearful w\aiit and agony of children dying 
 before the eyes of })arents, ay, and children, innocent 
 infants, found struggling for their young life at the 
 nipple of the mother, hours after life had left her ! Is 
 it possible, my Lords, for men who think of these things, 
 who liave their recollections revived by the dread of such 
 thiuors — is it riirht that their lanijjuage should be tested 
 
i6o STA TE OF IRELAND IN iSjg vii 
 
 by the same rules which men apply to those who are 
 philosophically and calmly discussing some problem of 
 economy or politics ? 
 
 My Lords, there had been in operation in Ireland 
 many causes which had led to an altered tone amongst 
 the Irish people. There had been the greater intercourse 
 with England, there had been the greater intercourse with 
 America ; and there is not the least doubt that inter- 
 course and communication with their friends in America 
 had somewhat raised, and God knows the standard had 
 been low enough, the notion of the standard of living, of 
 housing, of clothing, which the Irish people should possess. 
 They were no longer (for they had altered in that regard 
 to some extent at least, in some parts of the country 
 to a greater degree than others), willing to lie down 
 in the ditches to die, as they had, in 1846 and 1847, 
 but were prompted to make the struggle which human 
 nature will make when it is fighting for very life. 
 
 Now, my Lords, what were the landlords doing ? I 
 have already given your Lordships some indication from 
 references to the speeches of the Duke of Argyll and of 
 Mr. Forster. I will now give your Lordships figures 
 which have not yet been presented, but which tell a 
 remarkable story. Your Lordships will, of course, under- 
 stand that, so far as actual evictions are concerned, there 
 is a mode in which with tolerable accuracy you can 
 get at the figures, and it is this : Under one of the 
 Acts relating to ejectment, the intending ejecting land- 
 lord is bound to give notice to the relieving olticer in 
 the district, in order that when driven from their homes 
 there may at least be the possibility of getting shelter 
 in the workhouse. But the actual eviction forms, I will 
 not say a small, but a comparatively small part of the 
 disturbing causes which lead to crime. The apprehension 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN iSyq i6i 
 
 of eviction, tlie process for rent, the service of the eject- 
 ment notice, all tliese just as much as the actual eviction 
 cause ferment in the public mind and breed the elements 
 of disturljance in the locality where they exist. There 
 is no accurate mode — I mean accessible to the public — 
 of ascertaining precisely the number of ejectment notices; Ejectment 
 but we have taken the best means that can be taken by ^°^^'^^^- 
 applying to the clerks of the peace in the various 
 districts which are in question here, and Ave have got 
 returns from those clerks of the peace with few excep- 
 tions ; and, so far as the figures I am about to mention 
 to your Lordships can be questioned, they can be 
 questioned only in this, that they are understating and 
 not overstating the facts. I take the four provinces, and 
 I will then take the counties with which we are here 
 specially concerned, and I would ask your Lordships to 
 follow the average of the notices of ejectment for the 
 wliole period from 1853 to 1878, a period of 25 years, 
 which, therefore, will give a fair average, and to 
 compare that with the actual numlier in the one year of 
 1880. Taking the average from 1853 to 1878 in Ulster 
 the yearly number was 1489 ; in 1880 it was 2846. In 
 Connaught the average over the 25 years was 960 ; in 
 1880 it was 1995. In Munster the average Avas 1076 ; 
 in 1880 it was 2345. In Leinster the average was 
 912; in 1880 it was 1363. 
 
 Now I take the particular districts which are here in 
 question. In Galway the average was 236 ; in 1880 it 
 was 543. In Mayo the average was 281 ; in 1880, 625. 
 In Clare the average was 135 ; in 1880, 283. In Kerry 
 (I ask your Lordships' special attention to Kerry) the 
 average was 146 ; in 1880, 473. In the East Kiding of 
 Cork the average was 195 ; in 1880, 412. In the "West 
 Kiding of Cork the average was 94 ; in 1880, 207. 
 
 M 
 
i62 STATE OF IRELAND IN iSjg vii 
 
 My Lords, what then was tlie state of things ? A 
 period of intense distress proved, affecting specially and 
 particularly certain districts ; a recognition by the 
 Government of the day that exceptional legislation was, 
 in the interests of the peace of the country, required ; 
 that policy of the Government endorsed by the vote of 
 the House of Commons, the representative House of the 
 Legislature, in which the L'isli vote forms less than one- 
 sixth ; thrown out by the House of Lords, and side 
 by side with this, nothing done to stay the evictor's 
 hand ; the landlords unequal to the occasion. I ask 
 gravely is it in human nature to expect the people, the 
 leaders of the people, to fold their arms and do nothing '{ 
 If such a thing had occurred in England, would there not 
 have been thundered from every platform in the country 
 the aphorism of Thomas Drummond, that property has 
 its duties as well as its riohts ? And would there not 
 
 o 
 
 be thundered that still stronger but equally sound and 
 true aphorism of Poulet Scrope, a distinguished poli- 
 tician in this country, tliat property can have no 
 rights, ought to have no rights, inconsistent with the 
 general welfare of the people ? No, my Lords, the L-isli 
 leaders could not, the Irish people could not, be expected 
 to stand by with folded arms. It is true to say of 
 Ireland in that crisis— 
 
 " Famine is in thy cheeks, 
 Need and oppression starveth in thine 03^03, 
 Upon thy back hangs ragged misery ; 
 The woild is not thy friend nor the worhl's hiw." 
 
 My Lords, these defendants taught the Irish people 
 the necessity for combining themselves together 
 resolutely to fight for their lives in this extremity ; 
 and it was a fight for their lives. I am not going to 
 suggest that there were not men who took part in this 
 
VII STATE OF IRELAND IN i879 163 
 
 struggle who may not have been unworthy of sympathy. 
 I am not going to suggest that in such a struggle as 
 tliis there were not men who, under the cloak of a great 
 movement, sought their own selfish benefit and advan- 
 tage. I am not going to suggest tliat as incidental to 
 this there have not been misfortune, disturbance, and 
 crime. But I do suggest, I do affirm most boldly, 
 that in its main character, in its essential ol>jects, in its 
 essential means, this was a movement and a combina- 
 tion wliicli was not only justifiable before God and man, 
 but necessary in the condition of things which existed. 
 
 My Lords, if further justification is needed for this Justifica- 
 movement, if any one still remains who has followed LanY 
 this case, with any lingering doubt in his mind that Mo^v^ement. 
 there was a great social evil to be grappled with in the 
 interests, the commonest interests of humanity and of 
 justice, if any one asks what is the justification beyond 
 these facts, I refer them to the Statute-book of the 
 realm, and in the Statute-book of the realm since the 
 year 1879 is traced clearly, indelibly, unmistakably, the 
 justification for the position and the agitation of the Irish 
 leaders and the Irish people. For, as surely as I have 
 the honour this moment of addressing your Lordships, 
 tlie measure and fulness of the Land Act of 1881, of 
 the Arrears Act of 1882, of the Purchase Act of 1885, 
 of the further Acts of 1886 and of 1887, mainly owe their 
 existence upon the Statute-book of the realm to-day, 
 constituting a new charter for the Irish tenant, to the 
 actions of the men who at the instance of The Times are 
 held up to public obloquy and public odium as criminals 
 and accomplices in criminality before the law. 
 
 j\Iy Lords, I might even refer your Lordships to the 
 statements of more than one distinguished legislator, 
 a man who has held high ofiice, who in the House of 
 
i64 STATE OF IRELAND IN 1S79 vii 
 
 Commons declared that the action of the Land League 
 had made it possible for the Governments of 1881 and 
 1882 to pass their remedial measures of those years. I 
 refer to ]\Ir. Chamberlain. I think there are others who 
 have spoken in the same sense. And what does that 
 mean ? My Lords, it points to a grievous vice in our 
 political system. It does not mean — I have never 
 thought it, I have never said it — it did not mean that 
 honest men who have their attention called to the 
 wretched state of L-eland, and who form the repre- 
 sentation of Scotland, England, and Wales are not 
 honestly anxious according to their view to do their 
 duty ; but it means that there is a vis inert ice prevail- 
 ing in the Legislature in relation to L-isli cjuestions, 
 partly caused by the pressure of, as it is thought, more 
 important concerns, partly from want of information, 
 partly from class interests, partly from prejudice, until 
 it is literally true to say that, go over the legislation of 
 the last hundred years and trace the story of its remedial 
 legislation, and you will find that there is hardly one, 
 if there be one, of the measures of that character which 
 are to be found in the Statute-book which has come as a 
 freewill offerino- of the Leo-islature and which has not 
 come as the result of agitation, sometimes constitutional, 
 sometimes unconstitutional, but always after pressure. 
 
VIII. 
 
 THE LAND LEAGUE: PERSONAL SKETCHES 
 
 j\Iy Lords, that is the justification whicli, in general, I The Land 
 have to present to your Lordships for the existence of a ^^^"^* 
 League in 1879. I will now proceed to consider who 
 formed the League, what were its means and objects, 
 what was its work. 
 
 My liords, there are several men whose names will 
 come before your Lordships, and have come before your 
 Lordships, in very considerable prominence, and who 
 have been brouoht toocther in this Land League move- 
 meut, drawn from different parts of L'eland, pursuing 
 different occupations, beloii,o;iiig to different classes of 
 society, to meet upon one connnon i)latform — the platform 
 of the Land Lengue. And one question your Lordships 
 will have to answer — it is tlie question that your Lord- 
 ships will have to answer, as I liumbly conceive— is this : 
 — What was the link that l)ound these men together ; 
 what was the motive that brought them together? Did 
 they come together (for that is the case of the Attorney- 
 General) as criminals, with criminal intent and criminal 
 design, under the sham of a pretended land movement, 
 to redress a ])retended huid grievance, or did they come 
 together as men earnest for their country, anxious in its 
 time of trouble to lift from its shoulders part at least of 
 the oppressive burden which lay upon it? My Lords, upon 
 
i66 THE LAND LEAGUE viii 
 
 your answer to tliut question must, in my humble sub- 
 mission to your Lordships, depend the issue of this 
 Commission. For, let it not be forgotten, the case 
 which the Attorney-General has been instructed to put 
 forward is not the case of crime, accidental, incidental 
 to the stirring up of the popular feeling of the com- 
 munity upon a question as to which they were deeply 
 interested. The charge is — the case made is — that 
 these men met toscether and of desion aforethouoht 
 carefully calculated and deliberately applied a system 
 of murder and of outrage under cloak and pretence of a 
 Land League movement. 
 
 Who are these men ? I will mention some of them 
 to you. Amongst them were Mr. Patrick Egan and 
 Mr. Biggar. ]\/[j._ Bio'o-ar. ]\[r. Bio:o;ar is a man in business in the 
 town of Belfast, a man unquestionably of considerable 
 ability, of considerable resolution ; a man who pro- 
 fesses, if one may judge from his parliamentary career, 
 not to regard in the least the conventional standard of 
 conduct of those amongst whom he moves, 1)ut to act 
 simply and solely, in his parliamentary conduct, and 
 his conduct outside, in the manner in which he can 
 best advance within the law the cause of the Irish 
 people. Mr. Biggar was, like Mr. O'Connor Power, and 
 like one or two others whom I have to mention to your 
 Lordships, also when a young man a member of the 
 Fenian body. 
 Patrick So was Wy. Patrick Egan, who in his turn was a Dublin 
 
 ^''"'* tradesman, a man widely respected, and still respected, 
 and as to whom — as he is not here to defend himself, and 
 has been made the subject of attack — as to whom 1 
 hope to demonstrate to your Lordships upon the evi- 
 dence as it stands, that whatever may be the case in 
 his later career in America (of which I know nothing), 
 
PERSONAL SKETCHES 167 
 
 thnt til ere is not a scintilla of evidence upon which any 
 man of honest judgment can pronounce condemna- 
 tion against him for anything he has done in 
 Ireland or in Enoland. Both Mr. BiQ-^ar and Mr. 
 Patrick Egaii, liefore Mr. rarncll came to a prominent 
 position in ])olitics, were members of the Home Rule 
 Association known as Mr. Butt's. They joined that 
 association in the hope tha.t good might come of it, and 
 after joining it — i do not know wdiat the expression to 
 use is — tliey were drummed out, or, at all events, 
 ceased to be members of the secret society or Fenian 
 J^)rotherhood. It may surprise your Lordships to know 
 it — it certainly has to some extent surprised me to 
 know it — but I had not lived in Ireland in those days 
 — that a number of men of good character, of good 
 education, in despair of any good from constitutional 
 means or open political movements, were at one time 
 members of the Fenian body. But so it was. These 
 two whom I have mentioned — Mr. Biggar in Parliament 
 and Mr. Egan out of Parliament — belonged to the party 
 which ]Mr. Butt led and continued to lead practically 
 up to the time of his death in, I think, 1878 or 
 187'J. 
 
 Another whom I must mention, my Lords, is Mr. Tiiomas 
 Thomas Sexton — although he took part at a later date "^ 
 in the movement — now Lord ]\Iayor of Dublin ; a man 
 who Avas at that time the editor of a Dublin newspaper, 
 and for a long time earned his bread by his pen, and 
 by contributions to news[)apers and to magazines. Mr. 
 Sexton, my Lords, you will see before you. 
 
 I think all three of these gentlemen were members 
 of the Councd of Mr. Butt's Home Pule Association, and uome Rule 
 
 _. , . Associa- 
 
 that Home Rule movement, as you may understand it, tion. 
 began as far back as the month of J\lay 1870, and took 
 
THE LAND LEAGUE 
 
 its rise at a meeting held in the Bilton Hotel, Saekville 
 Street, at which the then Lord Mayor, the Right lion. 
 Edward Purdon, Protestant and Conservative ; Sir 
 John Barrington, the High Sheriff; Sir William Wiltle ; 
 James Martin, J.P. ; Mr. Isaac Butt, Q.C.; John ]\lartin, 
 M.P.; Mr. Harris; Major Knox; J. F. Lombard, J.P.; 
 and a number of others whose names I need not stop 
 to trouble your LordshijDS with — Colonel King-Harman, 
 Captain Edward King-Harman, William Shaw, after- 
 wards for a time leader of the Irish Parliamentary party, 
 and a lumiber of others. Dr. Galbraith of Trinity 
 College, and Dr. George Shaw of Trinity College, Dublin, 
 were members, and, as I am informed by my learned 
 friend, the great majority of them — I do not wish to 
 dwell upon that — were Protestant gentlemen and of 
 considerable distinction. 
 
 The subjects for the consideration of the meeting 
 were " the general dissatisfaction which prevailed in the 
 country owing to the evils of absenteeism, consequent 
 loss of trade, and national poverty." Another was 
 " the consideration of the advantage of a Poyal residence 
 from a political and a financial point of view." Another 
 was a proposal to arrange for an aggregate meeting, and 
 as the result of the discussion these two resolutions 
 were unanimously passed : — 
 
 "That it is the opinion of this meeting that tlie true remedy 
 for the evils of Irehind is the estahlishmcnt of an Irish i)arHament, 
 with fnll control over domestic atfairs. Tliat the following gentle- 
 men he appointed a committee, with power to add to their numlier, 
 to consider the best means of combining all classes of Irishmen in 
 support of a well-considered constitutional measure to attain the 
 object of the foregoing resolution." 
 
 That was followed by a further meeting on the 2Gth 
 May 1870, when the association was formally cousti- 
 
VIII PERSONAL SKETCHES 169 
 
 tuted, and its rules or rather its principles are what I 
 am about to read : — 
 
 " (1) This association is formed for the purpose of obtaining for 
 IreLand the right of self-government by means of a national parlia- 
 ment. (2) It is hereby declared, as the essential principle of this 
 association, that the objects, and the only objects, contemplated l)y 
 its organisation arc : to obtain for our country the right and 
 privilege of mannging our own affairs, by a parliament assembled 
 in Ireland composed of her Majesty the Sovereign, and her suc- 
 cessors, and the Lords and Commons of Ireland. To secure for 
 that j)arliamcnt, niidcr a federal arrangement, the right of legislating 
 for and regulating all matters relating to the internal affairs of 
 Ireland, and control over Irish resources and revenues, subject to 
 tlie ol)ligation of contributing our just proportion of the Imperial 
 expenditure. To leave to an Imperial parliament the power of 
 dealing with all questions affecting the Imperial Crown and Govern- 
 ment, legislation regarding the colonies and other dependencies of 
 the Crown, the relations of the United Empire Avith foreign states, 
 and all matters appertaining to the defence and the stability of the 
 empire at large. To attain such an adjustment of the relations 
 between the two countries, without any interference with the pre- 
 rogatives of the Crown, or any disturbance of the principles of the 
 constitution ; and (3) The association invites the co-operation of all 
 Irishmen who are willing to join in seeking for Ireland a federal 
 arrangement based upon these general principles. (4) The associa- 
 tion Avill endeavour to forward the object it has in view by using 
 all legitimate means of influencing public sentiment both in Ireland 
 and Croat Britain, by taking all opportunities of instructing and 
 informing })ublic opinion, and by seeking to unite Irishmen of all 
 creeds and classes in one national movement in support of the 
 great national object hereby contemplated. (5) It is declared 
 to be an essential principle of the association that, while every 
 member is understooil by joining it to concur in its general object 
 and ])lan of action, no person so joining is committed to any 
 political opinion except the advisability of seeking for Ireland 
 the amount of self-government contemplated as the object of the 
 association." 
 
 I will not stop to point out to your Lordships the 
 
I70 THE LAND LEAGUE viii 
 
 essential difference between that scheme and the scheme 
 for the restoration of Grattan's Parliament, which 
 was known by the name of the Eepeal Movement, 
 because you will recollect under the constitution of that 
 Parliament Ireland had the right of independent 
 negotiation in foreign treaties, the riglit to control 
 an army and navy of its own, if it thought fit to raise 
 it, and other matters of that kind ; but under the 
 federal arrangement here proposed the ol)ject was to 
 secure for Ireland — 'to put it in a sentence — a potential 
 and effective voice in legislatinsc in her own domestic 
 concerns in an Irish Assembly. 
 William My Lords, there are some other names I must men- 
 
 aud John tion — the names of William O'Brien and of John Dillon. 
 Dillon. Neither of them, for they are younger in years than 
 those I have mentioned, had, I believe, ever been con- 
 nected with any previous political movement, and the 
 same remark applies to Mr. Sexton. They had never 
 been members of any secret society or organisation. ]\lr. 
 O'Brien was a newspaper man. Mr. John Dillon was a 
 man who had claims to the respect of the people of Ire- 
 land, for his father, in times of trouble and unfaithfulness, 
 had been true to his trust as an Irish representative, and 
 Mr. John Dillon was, as Mr. O'Jh-ien, bred and educated as 
 a gentleman, educated to the medical profession. Both 
 of these men were ardent, and believed that they could 
 do something, hoped that they could do something, to 
 alleviate the condition of their country and their 
 countrymen. They have been called enthusiasts— some- 
 times called fanatics. Well, my Lords, they Avere en- 
 thusiasts. They may not have been always wise, they 
 may not have always said or done the most discreet 
 thing at the most discreet moment, but they were men 
 full of zealous and unselfish purpose to do what became 
 
VIII PERSONAL SKETCHES 171 
 
 honourable men to do to help those who needed 
 help. 
 
 My Lords, there is room in this world for more en- 
 thusiasts. Our age, our time, our habits of life consti- 
 tute an existence selfish, dull, material enough, and it 
 is enthusiasts who lift us at times out of ourselves, and 
 do something to relieve that general tone of selfish 
 materialism which I am afraid is a orrowina; characteristic 
 of those days. And after all, my Lords, it is enthusiasts 
 who have sounded the trumpet in times gone by, and 
 who will in times to come do it ; who have sounded the 
 trumpet when any great cry of humanity has gone 
 forth, and any great efibrt for human redress has to be 
 made. I need not defend them from this charge. I 
 think they are guilty of being enthusiasts — unselfish, 
 earnest enthusiasts. 
 
 1 must mention two more names, my Lord. Mr. Midiaei 
 
 Davitt. 
 
 JMichael Davitt is the son of a Mayo peasant. He has 
 had a stormy and a trying life. He is a man of con- 
 spicuous ability and of education, which in difficult 
 circumstances he has procured for himself ; and perhaps, 
 beyond the resoluteness of character and the ability 
 which he has displayed, perhaps his most icraarkable 
 characteristic is this, that in spite of it all he has no 
 rancour in his disposition, and he has shown his willing- 
 ness from time to time unselfishly and ungrudgingly to 
 give unrequited labour where labour could help the 
 afflicted and oppressed. 
 
 My Lords, his recollections of L'eland, which go a 
 long w^ay back, are sad recollections. His recollection 
 is of a child of five or six years of age flung on the road- 
 side with his father and his mother, victims of an 
 eviction, and of the deep wailing of his mother and the 
 fierce an^er of his father when he, witli all the little 
 
172 THE LAND LEAGUE viii 
 
 property which belonged to him, was iiung out on the 
 roadside l)y his peasant liome, llis next recollection is 
 even sadder still. It is the recollection of being led by 
 his mother's hand to the poorhonse in Galway, and his 
 mother turning indignantly from the official who told 
 her she could have no admittance there unless she was 
 willing to be separated from her child. For, my Lords, 
 in those days the poor law in Ireland was worked not 
 merely as an instrument for the relief of distress, but as 
 an instrument for degrading proselytism. Mr. Davitt 
 next found himself in a l)usy manufacturing town in 
 Lancashire, and there he suffered, still of tender years, 
 that physical injury which would have broken down the 
 spirit and the resolution of a less brave man. He has 
 struggled on. Without fear of contradiction, I say that 
 the whole course of his life may be examined, and, among 
 those who have come in contact with him, not one will 
 be found to say that he has been unfaithful to any trust, 
 or has been guilty of any dishonourjible ac-tion. Like 
 several of those whose names I have already mentioned, 
 he, too, in 1865, young, enthusiastic, joined the Fenian 
 movement. He avows it, and I daresay if pressed would 
 still say, that if despair of constitutional effort seized his 
 soul as it possessed him then, that failing any field for 
 useful work for his country and his countrymen, he 
 would become a Fenian again. He, my Lords, has 
 suffered for his sins, and he desires to have, and is 
 rejoiced in having on this occasion the opportunity in 
 the witness-box of explaining upon his oath one imputa- 
 tion which has been made upon him — that of complicity 
 or of contemplated complicity with assassination, which 
 he will show to your Lordships, as I am instructed, to 
 be absolutely without foundation. My Lords, he has 
 suffered many years' imprisonment. To men of weak 
 
PERSONAL SKETCHES 173 
 
 moral fibre that impuisonmeut would liave been ruin. 
 To him it has been an opportunity, which he has nobly 
 eml)raceil, for the forming of his character, for the 
 widening of his mind, for the strengthening of his 
 resolutions for good, and has been but an opportunity 
 of adding to his capacity to serve his fellowmen. He, 
 my Lords, also is one who joined Mr. Parnell in the Land 
 League movement. 
 
 'to' 
 
 The last of those to whom I have to refer is Mr. ciiaries 
 Parnell himself. Mr. Parnell has hereditary claims to para'di. 
 the esteem and gratitude of the L'ish people. His great- 
 grandfatlier, Sir John Parnell, was the last Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer in the Irish Parliament, and rather than 
 be a party to that act of betrayal he surrendered his 
 office. His grandfather, Mr. William Parnell, was the 
 author of one of tlie noblest tracts that I have ever read ; 
 he, a Protestant gentleman, knowing his Catholic fellow- 
 countrymen, published in 1807 the well-known Histori- 
 cal A})ology for the Irish Catholics, in which he defended 
 them successfully from the charge of bigotry and religious 
 persecution, and described them, as I believe, truly but 
 briefly as the only people who, having been foully de- 
 prived of political rights and freedom, had, upon the 
 resumption of those rights, not used that freedom and 
 those rights for the purposes of persecution. 
 
 ]\Iy Lords, the father of Mr. Charles Parnell, the son 
 of the author whom I have just mentioned, married a 
 lady of distinguished lineage. The mother of Mr. Charles 
 Parnell was a daughter of the first American admiral, 
 Charles Stewart, whose ship, the Ironsides, holds in 
 the history of the American navy the same proud place 
 that Nelson's Victory holds in the history of the Eng- 
 lish navy. 
 
 ]\]r. Parnell was educated at Cambridge, served the 
 
174 I^^IE LAND LEAGUE 
 
 office of high sheiiif', as liis fcither and his gTiindfatlier 
 before him had done, in his county, Wicklow, and in 
 1875 he entered Parliament. 
 
 I pause for a moment to repeat my question. Tlie 
 answer to it resolves the pith and marrow of the (juestion 
 which your Lordships' Commission has to decide. You 
 have these men — Mr. Biggar of l^elfast, trader ; JMr. 
 Patrick Egan of Dublin, tradesman ; Mr. John Dillon, 
 the medical student ; Mr. Thomas Sexton, the literary 
 man ; Mr. AVilliam O'Brien, the newspaper editor ; Mr. 
 Michael Davitt, the peasant's son ; Mr. Charles Stewart 
 Parnell, whose history and whose lineage I have given 
 considr- you. What brought these men together ? What was the 
 '^"^^ ■ tie between them ? What was the link that associated 
 
 men presumably dissimilar in tastes, different in station, 
 different in degrees of education ? AVhat brought them 
 together ? Again I put it. Is it true — for that is the 
 case of The Times — that these men came together on the 
 public platform, binding themselves together as criminals 
 to violate the law, and to do that under the sham and pre- 
 text of a social movement ? If they did so, they deserve 
 all condemnation that may fall upon their heads. But do 
 you believe it ? Is any man so blinded by passion and 
 by prejudice as not to see that there was a common 
 impelling motive with these men, and that common 
 impelling motive was the great national calamity which 
 was then pressing upon their country, and which they, as 
 men, were bound to do what they could to mitigate or to 
 avert ? 
 
 My Lords, I must follow out the career of Mr. Parnell 
 in brief, from his entry into Parliament, as representative 
 for the county of Meath in the year 1875, and, if 1 am not 
 greatly mistaken, that career will reveal Mr. Parnell in the 
 true and, I think, great and remarkable proportions of a 
 
VI n PERSONAL SKETCHES 175 
 
 constitutional Parliamentarican of great power, of great Pameii in 
 statesmanship, of remnrkable foresight. He came into ment 
 Parliament at a time wlicn Mr. Isaac Butt — who had un- 
 doubtedly done noble work in his day, and to whom the 
 memory of tlie Irish nation looks back with gratitude — 
 at a time when Mr. Butt, far advanced in years, and 
 perhaps unwilling to embark in fresh enterprises requir- 
 ing great exertion and great resolution, had a Parliament- 
 ary party, a portion of which undoubtedly were honest, 
 thoroughly honest, in the profession of their political 
 views, and another part of which unquestionably were 
 classed, under the name given to them by another dis- 
 tinguished statesman, as being "nominal Home Rulers," 
 and wlio thought that they satisfied all the exigencies 
 of their position by taking part in an annual division, 
 on the (piestion of a committee to inquire into the 
 relaiions I)et\v(MMi Ireland and Eno;]and. 
 
 My Jjords, ]\lr. Parnell was impressed with the view — 
 as events proved, rightly impressed with the view — that 
 the first need, the first necessity to make any impression 
 on tlie pu])lic mind of England and on the Parliament of 
 England was to force in season and out of season upon 
 public attention cpiestions relating to Ireland which he 
 believed to be urgent ; and he also from the outset 
 resolved on taking part, a leading and prominent part, 
 in the discussion of questions which, although they 
 related to Ireland, did not exclusively relate to Ireland. 
 
 One of the first measures in which he took a promi- 
 nentpartwas the discussion of the Annual Mutiny Bill as it 
 used to be called, or the Army and Navy Discipline Bill 
 as it is now called. He found that that Bill had passed 
 in previous sessions of Parliament as a matter of course. 
 He found it was loaded with obsolete and many, as he 
 believed, inhuman })rovisions, and he set himself to its 
 
176 THE LAND LEAGUE viii 
 
 reformation, and obtained ultimately the appointment of 
 a committee — of a strong committee — the result of which 
 was amongst other things the abolition of Hogging in 
 the Army and Navy. 
 
 That, my Lords, was in the years 1876, 1877, 
 and 1878, and, I think, flogging was abolished, as hu- 
 as I recollect, in 1880. In 1877 he took a strong 
 interest in the discussion of the Prisoners' Bill, brought 
 in at that time by, I think, the present Lord Cross, then 
 Sir Richard Cross, and Home Secretary for England ; 
 and as the result, to begin wath, of his efforts, aided un- 
 doubtedly by others in co-operation with him in the 
 House, he introduced a number of humane provisions 
 for the treatment of prisoners awaiting trial ; for the 
 treatment of prisoners tried for sedition or seditious 
 libel ; of prisoners who were charged with committing 
 contempt of court, dealing first wdth the prisoners 
 awaiting trial in seditious libel and contempt of court, 
 and then for the better treatment of persons convicted 
 of those offences. 
 
 A little later when Mr. Isaac Butt had left 
 the scene, after a short interregnum, during which Mr. 
 William Shaw was the nominal leader of the Irish Party, 
 Mr. Parnell, in 1880, was elected its head and president. 
 
 I will give your Lordships presently the actual 
 formation of the League, who the persons were who 
 assisted at its birth ; but I should like here boldly to 
 state the views upon which Mr. Parnell acted in this 
 and in every other public movement of his life. He 
 knew, as your Lordships now know, though I fancy the 
 story may probably have been new to some of your 
 Lordships, the feeling which largely existed in the Irish 
 mind in relation to the hopelessness of reform through 
 Parliamentary action. He knew the feeling that 
 
VIII PERSONAL SKETCHES 177 
 
 existed in the Irish mind arising from the fact that at a 
 period of open voting, and with a narrow and restricted 
 francliisc, sacrifice after sacrifice had been made to return 
 nicnd)ers to Parliament, and that those sacrifices had 
 been unproductive of any beneficial result to the 
 country. 1 Te felt that the first necessity was to create a 
 strong, healthy opinion in Ireland, in the words, which 
 I yesterday referred to, of Chief J3aron AVoulfe, " an 
 opinion racy of the soil," which should help to create, 
 and having created, help to maintain, the Irish party in- 
 dependent of either great political party in this country. 
 And in the formation of the League and the selection 
 of his colleagues in Parliament, knowing as he did the 
 history of the disasters of the Fenian movement, but 
 knowing, as he also did, that those men had taken part 
 in that movement in utter despair, and were prompted 
 to indiscreet methods by no selfish reason, he resolved, 
 and has from the beginning to the end resolved, to act 
 upon the principle of inviting into his open constitutional 
 movement every man, whether he had been a man of the 
 Young Ireland party in 1848, or of the Fenian movement 
 of 1865-G7 — of every man, whatever his creed, what- 
 ever his antecedents, whatever his political associations, 
 provided always and only he was earnest to work honestly 
 in such constitutional movement for the good of his 
 country. 
 
 My Lords, one thing can truly and proudly be said 
 l)y ]Mr. Parnell in his evidence in that regard. He 
 created and he maintained such a party ; they have been 
 independent of either party in the State. AVhatever else 
 in the way of fault-finding may be alleged against them, 
 it has not l)een alleged — cannot be alleged — that they 
 liave been tainted l)y corruption ; it has not been 
 alleged — cannot be alleged— that they have betrayed 
 
 N 
 
178 THE LAND LEAGUE viii 
 
 their trust ; it has not been alleo;ed — cannot be alleored — 
 that they have violated any promises or undertakings \^y 
 which they received the support — the remarkaljly unani- 
 mous support — of the Irish people who sent them to 
 Parliament. 
 
 I now come to the formation of the League, and to 
 the means and the objects which by its constitution it 
 proposed. 
 
IX. 
 
 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 
 
 I HAVE endeavoured to lay before your Lordships tlie 
 state of things which, we submit, justified the creation of 
 some local, strong, defensive body amongst the tenant 
 class, and the representatives of the tenant class, in 
 Ireland. 
 
 Tliat organisation ultimately became known under 
 the name of the Irish National Land League, and I have 
 now to lay Ijcfore your Lordships, and I think I am right 
 in saying, to Iny before you for the first time, the written 
 constitution and the published aims, ol)ject, and means, 
 of that organisation. 
 
 It was established formally on the 21st October Established 
 I87i). It was suppressed formally in October 1881. 
 
 rrevi<jus to October 1879 there had l)een several 
 meetings — the enrliest I think, in Mayo, at Irishtown — 
 at which the need for such an organisation was discussed. 
 Other meetings were lield in other places, at some of 
 which Mr. Davitt assisted, and undoubtedly Mr. Davitt 
 has l)een called, and rightly called, the father, the parent 
 of the Land Leao;ue. 
 
 My Lords, Mr. Parncll, I say at once, did not readily 
 give his assent to its formation or to its programme ; 
 not in the least becnuse he failed to realise the necessity 
 for some such organisation, but he had a distrust that 
 
l8o THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 was natural. He had never taken part in any popular 
 movement of the kind. He is essentially, and Ly 
 temperament, l)y accomplishments, hy character of mind, 
 a Parliamentarian. I say it plainly, that while he 
 possesses the distinguished and distinguishing qualities 
 of a statesman, he lacks many of those qualities which 
 one is apt to associate with the idea of a great popular 
 leader of a great popular movement. He is impassive ; 
 he lays no claim to eloquence to move multitudes, 
 although he does unquestionably possess some other and 
 greater qualities — discernment, resolution, foresight, 
 self-control, prudence. 
 
 After consideration he joined, and joined heartily, 
 in the movement, and became its president. He fore- 
 saw, as any one must foresee, that in any great popular 
 upheaval there will be difficulties and disturbances, and 
 that there will attach itself to tlie fringe of such a move- 
 ment men possessing sympathy with its objects, but 
 having ideas of their own. 
 
 The meeting of the 21st October, at which it was 
 inaugurated, was held in the Imperial Hotel, Lower 
 Sackville Street, Dublin, Mr. Andrew J. Kettle, Poor 
 Law Guardian, in the chair. 
 
 The resolutions were as follow: — 
 
 Proposed by tlie Eev. Father Behan, and seconded Ly Mr. 
 William Dillon, Barrister-at-Law, " That an association l)e hereby 
 formed, to be named 'The Irish National Land League.'" 
 
 Proposed by Mr. William Kelly, seconded by JMr. Thomas Roe, 
 "That the oljjects of the League are, first, to bring about a reduc- 
 tion of rack-rents ; second, to facilitate the obtaining of the owner- 
 ship of the soil by the occuj)ier3 of the soil." 
 
 Third. — I'roposed by Mr. Parnell, and seconded by the Eev. 
 Father Sheehy, "That the objects of the League can be best 
 attained by promoting organisation among the tenant-farmers, by 
 defending those who may be threatened with eviction for refusing 
 
ITS CONSTITUTION 
 
 to pay unjust rents; by facilitating the working of the Bright 
 clauses of the Land Act (that is, the Act of 1870) during the 
 winter, and by obtaining such reform in the laws relating to land 
 as will enable every tenant to become the owner of his holding by 
 pa3'ing a fair rent for a limited number of years." 
 
 My Lords, I will anticipate hj saying that that 
 resolution lias l)ecn to a great extent carried into effect, 
 and tliat tlie concluding portion of that clause, namely, 
 the turning of the tenant-occupier into the owner of the 
 f(>c-siniple of his holding by a limited payment over a 
 limitcMl nundjcr of years, is now the adopted policy of 
 (.)ne of th(> great parties in the State, I might almost say 
 of bo til, and has in part been carried into effect. 
 
 Proposed by Mr. Sweetman (this is the fourth resolution), 
 seconded by Mr. T. D. Sullivan, "That Mr. Charles S. Parnell, 
 M.P., be elected president of this League." 
 
 Proposed liy Mr. George Delaney, seconded by W. IL Cobbe, 
 " That Mr. A. J. Kettle, Mr. Michael Davitt, and Mr, Thomas 
 Brennan be appointed honorary secretaries of the League." 
 
 Fifth. — Proposed by Mr. Patrick Cummins, Poor Law Guardian, 
 seconded by Mr. Lawrence M'Court, Poor Law Guanlian, "That 
 Mr. J. G. Biggar, T^r.l\, ]\Ir. W. II. O'Sullivan, JNI.P., and Mr. 
 Patrick I'^jgan be appointed treasurers." 
 
 Sixth. — Moved by Father Sheeh}-, seconded by Mr. Michael 
 Davitt, " That the president of this League, Mr. Parnell, be 
 requested to ])roceed to America for the purpose of obtaining 
 assistance from our exiled countrymen, and other sympathisers, for 
 the objects for which this ap[ical is issued." 
 
 Seventh, and last. — Proposed by Mr. Thomas Ivyan, seconded 
 by Mr. J. F. Grehan, " That none of the funds of this League shall 
 be used for the purchase of any landlord's interest in the land, or 
 for furtliering the interests of any Parliamentary candidate." 
 
 I may say at once, my Lords, that that concluding 
 resolution was afterwards rescinded or modified ; but in 
 the succeeding election of 1880 only modified to the 
 extent of permitting the appropriation of a sum of, 1 
 
1 82 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 think, about £2000, which was the sole Parliamentary 
 Candidate Fund which the Irish party had at their 
 disposal at that election for the whole of Ireland. 
 
 There was also then formed a committee, and I wish 
 to read to your Lordships that committee, comprising 
 names well known in Ireland, and they are representa- 
 tives of the whole of Ireland. 
 
 The " Committee — Charles Stewart Parnell, ]\I.P., President, Avon- 
 
 Committee. J ■■ -r> j-l ] 
 
 dale, Kathdrum. 
 
 "Other members — Purcell O'Gorman, iM.R, Waterford ; John 
 Ferguson, Glasgow [that is a gentleman who has been referred to, 
 and he will be referred to by me later on] ; the Dean of Cashel, W. 
 Quirke ; Dr. Cummins, of Liverpool ; Mattliew Harris, of Ballina- 
 sloe ; tlie Very Kev. Canon Bourke, P.P., Chiremorris ; J. O'Connor 
 Power, M.P., London ; Eev. John Behan, C.C, Francis Street, 
 Dublin ] Eichard Lalor [now a member of Parliament, not then in 
 Parliament], Mountrath; J. L. Finegan, M.P., London; Rev. E. 
 Sheehy, CO., Kilmallock ; J. J. Louden, Barrister-at-Law, Westport; 
 O'Gorman Mahon, M.P., London ; John Dillon, North Great George 
 Street, Dublin; the Rev. W. Joyce, P.P., Louisburgh, Coimty Mayo; 
 N. Ennis, M.P., Claremount, County Meath ; Thomas Roe, pro- 
 prietor of the Dundalk Democrat; Dr. J. R. IM'Closky, Londonderry; 
 George Delaney, Burlington Road, Dublin ; T. D. Sullivan, now 
 member of Parliament, Nation, Dublin; James Byrne, AVallstown 
 Castle, Cork ; Dr. J. E. Kenny, LoAver Gardiner Street, Dublin ; j\Iul- 
 hallen Marum, J. P., Ballyragget, now member of Parliament ; P. F. 
 Johnston, Kanturk; the Rev. M. Tormey, Painstown, Bcauparc ; the 
 Very Rev. Canon Doyle, P.P., Ramsgrange ; Philip J. JMoran, Finea, 
 Granard ; 0. J. Carraher, Cardestown, County Louth ; the Rev. 
 J. White, P.P., Milltown-Malljay ; P. Cummins, Poor Law Guardian, 
 Rathmines; James Daly, Poor Law Guardian, Castlebar ; P. ]\I. 
 Furlong, CO., New Ross ; Thomas Ryan, Great Brunswick Street, 
 Dublin ; James Rourke, Great Britain Street, Dublin ; Richard 
 Kelly, proprietor of the Tuam Herald; William Dillon, North Great 
 George Street, Dublin, Barrister-at-Law; L J. Kennedy, T.C., 
 ClonlifFe Terrace, Dublin; M. O'Flaherty, Dunoman Castle, Croom; 
 John Sweetman, Kells ; M. F. Madden, Clonmel ; J. C. Howe, 
 London ; Rev. Thomas Lynch, Painstown, Beauparc ; J. F. Grehan, 
 
IX ITS CONSTITUTION 183 
 
 Poor Law Guardian, Cabintcely, County Dul:»lin ; the Rev. I). 
 Brennan, Kilniacow, County Kilkenny ; AVilliam Kelly, Donabate, 
 County Du1:»lin ; C. Eeilly, Artane, County Dublin ; L. M'Court, 
 Poor Law Guardian, Bolton Street, Dublin ; Stephen O'Mara, 
 Limerick ; Thomas Grehan, Loughlinstown, County Dublin; M. K. 
 Dunne, C.C, Enniscorthy ; M. J. Kenny, P.P., Scariff ; 11. H. Medge, 
 Athlumney House, Navan ; Michael A. Conway, afterwards member 
 of Parliament ; the Rev. A. Conway, P.P., Skreen, County Sligo. 
 
 " Treasurers— W. H. O'Sullivan, M.P., Kilmallock; J. G. Biggar, 
 M.P., Belfast ; Patrick Egan, 25 Synnot Place, Dublin." 
 
 Tlic honorary secretaries I have already mentioned. 
 
 I have troubled your Lordships with the enumeration 
 of these names for one reason principally. It is to state 
 that of the whole of the number of this committee which 
 formed the initial executive of the League there are 
 only, as I am informed, and as far as we know, some 
 five names out of the entire nund.ter who had ever l)een 
 connected with any secret organisation whatever, and I 
 mention the names therefore in detail, so that if it be 
 thouglit fit to question it, or if there be ground for 
 questioning it, it may be done. 
 
 JMy Lords, at that same time there was circulated an 
 "Appeal to the Irish Eace." I will read every docu- 
 ment, because I desire, as I think I have more than 
 once satisfied your Lordshi2>s I desire, really to get, as 
 we have embarked on this enterprise, to the bottom of 
 the entire matter. This document, my Lords, was 
 circulated and was headed, as I have said, an "Appeal 
 to the Irish Race," issued under the sanction of the 
 Executive. 
 
 " The land and rent agitation which has originated in the west Appeal to 
 
 the Ir 
 Race. 
 
 of L-eland, and is rapidly spreading throughout the country, has ^-''^ ^'''^'^ 
 
 now assumed such national proportions that it becomes a question 
 of first importance to all who sym])athise with its legitimate objects, 
 how best to guide this popular movement to the attainment of 
 
THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 
 
 those ends. Temporary abatements of excessive rents are being, 
 and may continue to be, obtained through tlic various agencies of a 
 symj^athetic but unorganised advocacy, wliicli the existing wide- 
 spread and alarming distress elicits from the press and bodies of the 
 community ; but without the creation of some constituted guide or 
 directing influence, the primary, if not the sole cause of the existing 
 poverty of the agricultural classes will not be removed. 
 
 " Independent of the effect which the products of the vast free 
 lands of America and other favoured countries must have in com- 
 petition with liie produce created under rent-tied and paralysing 
 conditions in Ireland, almost all the evils imder which her people 
 sufter are referable to a land system glaringly antagonistic to the 
 first principles of justice and fair government, which place the good 
 of the greatest number below the privileged gratification of the few. 
 Landlordism, founded as an institution of systematic partiality, has 
 proved itself but too true to the spirit of its origin by reducing all 
 who are dependent on, but unprotected by, ownership of the soil, to 
 a degraded, semi-mendicant existence, and, in addition, includes the 
 loss of that independent character which arises from an independ- 
 ence of position. 
 
 "The duties which feudal laws and customs exacted in return 
 from those in Avhom they recognised certain arbitrary rights, have 
 been ignored by Irish landlordism in its relations to the soil and 
 those dependent upon the fruits of its cultivation, thus adding to 
 the other indictments against the system a non-fulfilment of 
 essential obligations. 
 
 " Any land system which does not tend to improve the value 
 of land and enable cultivation to meet the exigencies of those 
 dependent upon its produce, stands self-condemned as barbarous, 
 unjust, and reprehensible. 
 
 " The diminished population of our country, the millions of our 
 race who perished in or fled from a land in which God intended 
 they should not die by hunger ; the continued struggle with 
 poverty, which those have to maintain who yet cling to their 
 native soil, and the periodic climaxation of the impoverishing 
 influences which landlordism exercises upon the social life of 
 Ireland, demand at last, in face of yet another impending national 
 calamity, the application of a remedy which can no longer be denied 
 for the salvation of a people. In contrast to the social wretched- 
 ness to which a barbarous land system has reduced our country is 
 
ITS CONSTITUTION 185 
 
 the rapidly progressing prosperity of those peoples at whose 
 (leraand, or for whose benefit such a system has been swept away, 
 and the cultivator of the soil has replaced the landlord as its pro- 
 l>iictor. The surj)lus produce of lands thus freed, and agricultural 
 industry thus relieved from its rent-taxation, is now placed by easy 
 transit over sea and land in competition with what is produced 
 under conditions of land tenure the most unfavourable, and incen- 
 tives to toil the least encouraging, that ever regulated the chief 
 industry of any civilised country. When to this is added the 
 adverse influences of successive bad seasons, on the point of culmin- 
 ating in what threatens to be the Avorst yet experienced since 
 famine years, the position of the Irish farmer and those depending 
 upon the fruits of his enterprise and labour assumes an aspect of 
 menacing ruin, which to consider as transient or accidental would 
 be a criminal disregard of the vital existence of a people. Impelled 
 by the desperate circumstances of their situation, the farming and 
 other classes concerned have proclaimed their grievances in public 
 meetings and by the press, demanding the remedies which alone 
 can redress them. A consensus of opinion, apart from immediate 
 interestedness, has declared that the remedy ])ut forward by the present 
 agitation is founded on justice, reason, and expediency, and that its 
 application is absolutely essential to meet the evils complained of 
 and insure the jnosperity and contentment of Ireland. In formu- 
 lating a demand for ownership of the soil by the occupiers in 
 substitution for that of the landlords, the people of Ireland neither 
 contemplate nor ask for the confiscation of those proprietorial 
 rights which existing laws must necessarily recognise and protect ; 
 but that for the transfer of those rights to an industrial ownership, 
 a fair compensation may be given to those who shall be called upon 
 to agree to such transfer for the settlement of the agrarian strife of 
 the country, and for the supreme good of its peo})le. 
 
 " To carry out a project as vast as that which we contemplate 
 nuist require means in proportion to the difliculties that must be 
 encountered in the undertaking. Tenants defence associations 
 must be organised in every count}^ and assistance be rendered to 
 farmers who may be called upon to defend themselves against an 
 unjust or capricious exercise of landlord power. The wealth of 
 Ircdand is almost entirely in the hands of that class which we 
 purpose for the good of the country to deprive of the absolute 
 possession of the soil, and it is but natural to expect that strong 
 
i86 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 and influential opposition will be ollored hy those who will he 
 called npon to surrender the itrivileges they have so long enjoyed, 
 even in virtue of compensation and exi)ediency. To meet this 
 opposition, and guide tlie national movement for freeing the land 
 of Ireland, assistance of two kinds must be forthconung. The first 
 and most essential kind is an organised development of earnest- 
 ness, and a resolute attitude on the part of the six hundred 
 thousand landless farmers of Ireland, as well as those whose daily 
 bread depends upon the prosperity of their fatherland, in demanding 
 their just rights as guaranteed in the settlement we propose. The 
 second aid required is money. Neither has ever been wanting 
 when the national spirit of our country and the patriotism of her 
 exiled sons have been appealed to in a patriotic cause, and we are 
 confident they will not be withheld now when the very soil of 
 Ireland is the object we desire to free and the land slavery of our 
 people the thing we are resolved shall be abolished for ever. None 
 of our race have had such bitter experience of the wrongs of land- 
 lordism as those who have been compelled to seek abroad the food 
 denied them at home, and none should more readily and gener- 
 ously sympathise with those who are resolved to retain a firm gri}) 
 of their Irish homesteads than the exiled who Avere forced by 
 iniquitous laws to leave them. 
 
 "In the great shelter-land of peoples ten millions of the Irish 
 race have found a home. The system we aspire to abolish has 
 banished them from Ireland. Benefiting by laws which aff'ord 
 equal protection and encouragement to all citizens of the great 
 Republic of America, they can appreciate the eftbrts which aim at 
 aftbrding equal incentives to progress to their crushed and persecuted 
 kindred here. 
 
 "Not alone to our fellow-countrymen in America, but to all 
 whom evil laws have scattered the world over, as well as to all 
 other nationalities Avho symijathise with a wronged and impoverished 
 people Avho at last are resolved upon a remedy for the evils alllicting 
 them, do we call for an advocacy of our cause and support in our 
 efi'orts to achieve success. 
 
 "In constituting ourselves a committee for the purpose of 
 carrying out this work we are animated with but one desire, to aid 
 the tenant farmers and those depending upon the soil of Ireland to 
 lift themselves from the misery and social degradation in which 
 they are plunged into a position where the notice to quit and the 
 
n\S CONSTITUTION 187 
 
 rack rent will not operate against their industry, security, and con- 
 tentment. We are influenced liy no party spirit in making this 
 api»cal, nor do we in any way purpose to place this committee in 
 antagonism with existing bodies or organisations employed in other 
 departments of national lal)our. To free the land of Ireland from 
 the unwise and unjust restrictions which militate against its proper 
 cultivation, and prevent the dcvclojmicnt of its full resources, should 
 1)0 a labour above the customary influences of party or sectional 
 strife, and to l)o guided alone by motives of disinterested effort for 
 the benefit of our common country, and the im2)i'ovement, content- 
 ment, and prosperity of the greatest number of our fellow- 
 countrymen. 
 
 "The grounds upon which we feel authorised to issue this 
 appeal are the fact of our lieing either directly or indirectly con- 
 nected Avith the agitation which has sprung from the distress that 
 has evoked a national condemnation of the present land system. 
 As this land movement has won an endorsement from public 
 opinion of an occupying proprietary settlement of the Land Question, 
 -those who have advocated such a remedy lu'ior to and in conjunction 
 with the national demand now made for it, feel themselves justified 
 in taking such steps as may be best calculated to insure its applica- 
 tion to the existing land evils of our country. In pursuance of this 
 intention we issue this appeal to Irishmen the world over, and to 
 those who sympathise with the object in view, to aid us in our 
 efforts to obtain for our people the possession of an unfettered soil, 
 and for Ireland the benefits which must result from an unrestricted 
 development of its products and resources." 
 
 IMy Lords, tliat was issued immediately after the 
 meeting wliicli I have mentioned to you. I liave to 
 read in that connection also the rules which were at that 
 time formulated. They are headed — 
 
 "The Irish National Land League 
 
 " Offices : 62 Middle Abbey Street, Dublin 
 
 "Branches of the Irish National Land League should be 
 established in every parish, or in groups of parishes, in Ireland. 
 
i88 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 EULES FOR THE GUIDANCE OF BRANCHES 
 
 I. 
 
 " That a president, vice-president, treasurer, and secretary, and 
 with them not less than seven members, be elected a committee for 
 the general management of business. 
 
 II. 
 
 "That the officers shall be elected for the term of one year, 
 subject to removal by a vote of the members of the branch. 
 
 III. 
 
 " That the election of officers shall take place by ballot. 
 
 IV. 
 
 " That the membership subscription shall not be less than one . 
 shilling each year, the subscription being based on Government 
 valuations, as follows : — One shilling annually for first £5 valuation 
 and under, and an increase of one shilling for every additional £10. 
 
 V. 
 
 "That all branches affiliated to the League shall forward, on 
 the first day of each month, half of the funds in hand, and with it 
 a monthly statement to the Central Executive. 
 
 VI. 
 
 "That the treasurers shall in all cases furnish members with 
 regular Land League receipts for full amount of subscrii)tions paid, 
 on forms supplied by the Central Executive, the counterpart of 
 which shall be forwarded to the central offices. 
 
 VIL 
 
 "That all cards of membership shall be supplied by Central 
 Executive, and will be furnished when Eule VI. has been complied 
 with. 
 
ITS RULES 189 
 
 VIII. 
 
 " That no person shall be admitted to membership who does not 
 give his adhesion to the principles of the League. 
 
 IX. 
 
 "That no one taking a farm from which another has been 
 evicted for non-])ayincnt of unjust rent shall be allowed to become 
 a member of any branch of the Land League. 
 
 X. 
 
 " Tliat any memlier of a branch bidding for, or occupying a 
 farm from which a member or non-member has been evicted, or 
 who shall rent land which a member or non-member may have 
 surrendered on grounds of excessive rent or upon a refusal of a fair 
 reduction of a rack rent, shall be expelled the branch for such 
 action. 
 
 XL 
 
 " That no man assisting to serve processes of ejectment, or 
 taking part in any eviction, or purchasing stock or produce seized 
 for non-payment of a rack rent, be allowed the memlicrship of any 
 branch. Any member of a branch proved guilty of any of the 
 foregoing acts to be at once expelled. 
 
 XII. 
 
 " That the managing committee of each branch of the League 
 should keep a register of the members, particulars of their holdings, 
 names of their landlords and agents, amount of rent paid annually 
 or otherwise, excess of same above Government valuation, cases of 
 rack renting and eviction, and all the necessary jmrticulars touching 
 the lolation of landlords with their tenants in the locality of sucli 
 l>raiich of the League, in books to be suj)plied by the Central 
 Executive. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 " That all sectarian discussions be excluded from meetings." 
 
 IMy Lords, al)out tlie same time, on tlie 5th of 
 Noveuiljer 1879, the folio wiiior address was issued : — 
 
I90 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 
 
 " To THE Farmers and all Interested in the Settlement 
 OF the Land Question 
 
 "Having addressed the exiled of our race in behalf of the 
 movement whicli has been initiated for the redress of the land evils 
 of our country, we now venture to appeal to you for practical 
 assistance in the efforts we are making towards securing the soil of 
 Ireland for those who cultivate it. 
 
 " No more favourable opportunity has ever presented itself to 
 our people for the settlement of a momentous national question 
 than that which is now offered by circumstances the most pro- 
 pitious for a radical reform, existing in conjunction with an extra- 
 ordinary popular agitation demanding the justice of its concession. 
 
 " The first industry of our people is paralysed. Foreign com- 
 petition has supplemented the disastrous effects of bad harvests, 
 and produced a crisis which renders it almost impossible for farmers 
 to meet their rental obligations. Agitation has had to be evoked 
 to demand reduction of rents which could not be paid. The price 
 of land has also fallen in consequence of the lowering of fiu'm pro- 
 duce, and the stand which the farming classes have been compelled 
 to make for reduced rents. 
 
 " Both will be continued to be lowered until rents are brought 
 to a proper level and laud to its fair value. 
 
 " Will the people of Ireland lay a firm hold of this Land Question 
 at the tide that is now approaching, and which will inevitably lead 
 to a peasant i)roprietary, and thus insure for our country that 
 prosperity and contentment which a free soil has produced in 
 countries where landlordism has been abolished ? 
 
 "AVe earnestly hope that those whom we address Avill prove 
 themselves equal to the occasion. We at least are resolved to do 
 our duty ; but if our efforts are not seconded by farmer and 
 labourer, trader and mechanic, and all others whom a system must 
 benefit that would create and foster an industry which is the main- 
 spring of a people's wealth, and would prove the panacea for the 
 social evils arising from unemployed masses, we are hopeless of 
 success. 
 
 "The best arguments for obtaining help from our exiled 
 countrymen and other sympathisers will be the practical eftbrts Ave 
 at home will make to show our earnestness in the cause for which 
 we solicit their generous support. 
 
ADDRESS TO FARMERS 19 j 
 
 " We call ujwn all who desire the success of this movement to 
 aid us ]>y tlieir subsci'ii)tions and assistance. We ask only for what 
 will show the sympathy of those whose helping hands are required 
 in the work. 
 
 "The agitation for the reduction of excessive rents must be 
 sustained, so that the operation of natural causes may be assisted in 
 bringins;;; land to a fair valuation, in order to enable its cultivators 
 to become the owners of their own farms upon terms within the 
 nieaiis of every occupier. 
 
 " For this and other pur[)oses beneficial to the farming classes, 
 oi'ganisation is required anrong them ; and to sustain this land 
 movement and encourage such organisation, as well as to render 
 assistance when necessarj' to victims of landlord oppression, we have 
 ap[)ealed for money to our banished kindred, and for these purposes 
 and these alone we now appeal to you for whatever aid you can 
 afford to render. 
 
 " This is no sectarian movement, but one which, afl'ecting alike 
 the social Avell-being of Catholic and Protestant, should invite their 
 enndative co-operation in eflbiis to ivchievo its success; nor is it 
 exclusively concerned in ameliorating the condition of the farmer 
 and agri(;ultural labourer, but has for its scope the general advance- 
 ment of every commercial interest, and the encouragement of 
 every occupation in the industrial ranks of our people. 
 
 " The attention of the civilised world will be directed on Ireland 
 to obsei've how she will work out this great social })robleni for the 
 unfettering of land and lalxjur, and the removal of those legal 
 restrictions which i)revent the soil of a coimtry froni producing the 
 good for which it was cieated, thus making a struggle with poverty, 
 through life, the penaUy which the mass of mankinrl have to i>ay to 
 evil laws for being born poor. Will Ireland be true to herself and 
 equal to this task 1 " 
 
 That, my Lords, is signed by : — 
 
 " Charles S. Parnfxl, 
 Joseph G. Biggar, 
 W. II. O'SuLLiVAN, Executive 
 
 Patrick Egan, \ Irish National 
 
 A. J. Kettle, [ Land League." 
 
 Michael Davitt, 
 Thomas Prennan, 
 
192 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 My Lords, one further address I must call attention 
 to. Ulster, formerly in the van of every Irish 
 popular movement, had of late years, owing to 
 relio'ious differences, which had been fomented by 
 class interests, stood apart, or at least a great portion of 
 Ulster had stood apart, and an address was about the 
 same time specially made to the Ulster farmers in which 
 they were reminded that this was a cause of common 
 interest to them all, and invited them to lay aside the 
 reli2;ious differences which had to some extent kept 
 them apart from and out of sympathy with the 
 rest of the people. I hope, my Lords, that this is 
 the last document that at this moment I shall have 
 to read. 
 
 "Manifb:sto to the People of Ulster 
 
 "Fellow- Countrymen — There is evidence that in parts of 
 Ulster the opponents of land reform arc endeavouring to create 
 disunion between north and south. If these persons confined 
 themselves to facts and fair arguments, the public would have no 
 reason to complain, for this is an age when every principle and 
 every public movement have to account for themselves before the 
 bar of public opinion. But when men come forward who assume 
 a tone of friendliness to the tenant farmers, and then strike at them 
 from behind sectarian barriers, and from a })latform with which the 
 present land movement has no relationship either of alliance or 
 antagonism, we think it right to protest against such conduct and 
 repel the slanderous calumnies which have been heaped upon us, 
 and upon the just and noble cause with which we are identified. 
 We are accused of agrarian crime by the class who, as landlords, 
 have been willing instruments in conunitting the greatest agrarian 
 crime that (we quote the woids of Tlie Times) ' ever one nation 
 committed against another.' We are accused of sectarianism b}' 
 men who, in the same breath and on the same platform from which 
 they make these charges, apply themselves to the satanic work of 
 striving to create discord and hatred between people who con- 
 scientiously differ in matters of religion. To the first of these 
 
IX THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 193 
 
 cliarges we answer that agrarian crime is the natural outcome of 
 our present land sj^stem, and those who sustain that system are 
 resiionsil)lc for the crimes that spring from it. The second charge, 
 that of sectarianism, we brand as a foul aiul malicious falsehood, 
 and chall(>jig() the traducers of ourselves, and those who co-operate 
 with us, (() ]H)int out a single instance in which sectarianism has 
 s]u)\vn i(self in our proceedings, or as being the effect of our 
 proceedings. Every observer who has followed the course of our 
 present agitation must be aware that Catholics — even the Catholic 
 hierarchy and priesthood — are as much divided on the great question 
 we advocate ns if they were not members of the same religious 
 community, a ])ortion being anxious to retain a territorial caste, 
 while others lean to the side of a peasant proprietary. As a matter 
 of fact, the present agitation has resolved itself into a struggle, pure 
 and simi)l(', between the tenants and their friends on the one side 
 and the landlords, Protestant and Catholic, and their supi)ortcrs, 
 on the other. That the state of feeling Ave here describe exists 
 throughout the other three provinces was clearly shown at the late 
 general election, when, as in Roscommon, Mayo, and other places, 
 Catholic gentlemen of the staunchest typo and the oldest families 
 were unseated solely on account of their not being sufficiently ad- 
 vanced on the question of land reform. If, then, the Catholics of 
 the south give such evidence of their willingness to ignore party 
 ties : if they assert their right to difTei', and maintain their right to 
 difTer, from the highest dignitaries of their Church on the great 
 (|Ucstion of tlie day, ai'e they to be met Avith denunciations and 
 distrust ? :iie they to be left to fight the battle alone aTid unaided 
 by the men of the north % We think not ; we believe they will be 
 met half-way ; we believe the men of Ulster will show the Avorld 
 that in the cause of justice, in the iiUercst of the oppressed tenant 
 farmers, they can raise themselves above the level of sectarian jjre- 
 judice or party Avelfare. In this address we would prefer not 
 touching on the cpiestion of religion, wox would we do so except to 
 rebut falsehood and make known the truth ; and as some of the 
 exaggerated statements put forward are calculated to mislead per- 
 sons who do not look below the surface, we would meet these 
 statements by calling attention to a few important facts — facts 
 which should be known to every farmer in Ulster. The first of 
 these w(^ take from the E)i(jli>ih in Ireland, by Mr. Fronde, who 
 states that 'In the two years wlii(;h followed the Antrim evictions, 
 
 o 
 
1 94 THE IRISH NA TIO NA L LAND LEAGUE i x 
 
 30,000 evicted Protestiiiits left Ulster for a land where there were 
 no legal robbers, and where those who sowed the seed could reap 
 the harvest.' The Antrim evictions took place in 177li. The 
 highest delinquents in those evictions were Lord Donegal and Mr. 
 Upton, whose descendants are now foremost in hostility to the 
 Land League. The second authority Ave give is Thorn's AlmanacL 
 Those who consult it for the present year will find that, leaving 
 out the period of the famine, the number of emigrants who left 
 Ulster from the 1st May 1851 to the 31st December 1878 was 
 732,807. It will also be found that from the year 1841 to 1871 
 the number of holdings above 1 acre and up to 15 decreased by 
 103,941 in the province of Ulster, These figures require no com- 
 ment ; they tell plainer than we can how dearly the Protestant 
 landlords of Ulster love the small farmers of Ulster. With these 
 facts before their minds, we would ask the clear-minded, common- 
 sense farmers of the north to judge of landlordism, not by its pro- 
 fessions in the present, but by its conduct in the past. We would 
 ask them to reflect calmly on the future, when, as Mr. Cousins, 
 United States Consul at Birmingham, states, in an otticial rejjort 
 to his own Government, the British farmer, even if rents Avere 
 abolished, would not be able to pay taxes and compete with 
 America. This statement of a disinterested party, of ;i Covern- 
 ment oflicial to the Covernment ho represents, is pregnant Avith 
 meaning to the Irish farmer. It tells plainly that in the near 
 future landlord and tenant cannot co-exist in these islands ; that 
 Ireland must become one vast pasture land in possession of an idle, 
 extravagant landocracy, or a land covered Avith comfortable home- 
 steads — homesteads in possession of contented, industrious farmers 
 — industrious, because they no longer save that others ma}' Avaste ; 
 contented, because they no longer toil that others may live idle. 
 On this plain issue Ave have taken our stand ; on this plain issue Ave 
 appeal to the men of the north ; Ave aj)peal to them as countrymen 
 and brothers ; Ave ask them to be Avith us in this great contest ; to 
 stand by us in this the hour of trial. We ask them to share our 
 labours and our dangers, as, should victory croAvn our eflbrts, and 
 crown them it must, we would ask them to share in the benefits 
 and in the glory of our triumph." 
 
 My Lords, tliixt was issued about two months after 
 the formation of the League. I cannot give you the 
 
IX THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 195 
 
 exact date, l)iit at the end of 1879 or at tlie beginning 
 of 1880. 
 
 My Lords, 1 tliink I am justified in saying that, if 
 tliis was a criminal conspiracy, it certainly lias features 
 about it wliicli distinguish it from every criminal con- 
 spiracy the world has ever known. It is open ; it is 
 public; its programme, whether you agree with it or 
 not, is not a wiclced programme. There is no conceal- 
 ment about its aims ; there is no concealment about its 
 means. It is true that one laro-e and influential class 
 in Ireland did not at the earlier stages join that move- 
 ment in great strength — I mean the Catholic bishops 
 and the Catholic priesthood. A very large number of 
 both were its friends from the first; but when it became 
 manifest, after the rejection of the Compensation for 
 Disturbance Bill, to which I yesterday referred, that 
 Parliament could do nothing by way of protection 
 for the tenant class, then in all their strength, and in 
 all their fulness, the clergy of Ireland, of all ranks and 
 conditions, with hardly an exception, even amongst its 
 higher hierarchy, gave their sympathy and their support 
 to this movement. 
 
 Now, my Lords, one observation, one suggestion, 
 may possibly be made. Of course one might naturally 
 apprehend difficulties from every popular movement of 
 the kind, and one might perhaps apprehend, especially in 
 a movement which addressed itself to the personal in- 
 terests of the class most largely affected, and whose 
 co-operation was most largely sought, that there might 
 be imjust and illegitimate use of the machinery which 
 its organisation unquestionably formed. That, my Lords, 
 is only saying that in every work of reform for which 
 agitation is necessary, evils may arise ; and I state, in 
 order to meet it fairly, the proposition thus : Is a man. 
 
196 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 is ta body of men who are impressed with the necessity 
 of making a supreme effort to avert a great impending 
 calamity as tliey believe — an effort to permanently 
 remove a great social evil, and to attack the source and 
 spring from which crime and misery in the past have 
 been shown to How — are they as men, as moralists, 
 because of such possible incidental evils, bound to stay 
 their hands and do nothing ? 
 
 My Lord, if such reasoning were to prevail, many 
 crusades against despotism, many an effort to redress 
 human grievances, would not, could not have been 
 undertaken. Even in more settled communities like 
 that of England, there has been no great popular move- 
 ment, whether it was for reform, whether it was for free 
 trade, whether it was for establishing the rights of the 
 working artisans to free combination and to joint 
 action, there is not one of these that has not had 
 accompanying it the incidental evils of disturbance and 
 crime. 
 
 Perhaps the noblest vindication of the right of man 
 — of the duty of man to embark upon popular move- 
 ments, when there is the need for popular movement, 
 and not to be withheld from effort because of incidental 
 ill consequences that may follow, the noblest and the 
 best, perhaps, is that written by Mr. Mackintosh, after- 
 wards known to the world as a great jurist. Sir James 
 Mackintosh. 
 
 Your Lordships will recollect that that distinguished 
 man, Edmund Burke, carried away by the contempla- 
 tion of the grievous excesses which followed tlie French 
 Revolution, condemned, and strongly condemned, and 
 even attributed to the authors of that revolution all the 
 excesses, the evils, the crime, the misery that followed 
 it ; and in his Vindicice (xallicce, in answer to that view 
 
PARNELL IN AMERICA, iSjg-So 197 
 
 of Edmund Burke, Sir James Mackinfcosli puts this 
 question : — - 
 
 " Has any moralist ever pretended that we were to decline the 
 pursuit of a good which our duty prescribed to us because Ave fore- 
 saw that some i)a,rtial and incidental evil would arise from it ?" 
 
 I have til ought it riglit to make this point ; but I 
 would remind your Lordships, even if my argument 
 does not, as \ hope it will, carry weight with your Lord- 
 ships, that you are not liere sitting as moralists to judge 
 of moral resjionsibility. Your Lordships are here as 
 judges to try a distinct, unequivocal charge of direct 
 complicity with crime. 
 
 Your Lordshij)s will recollect that the concluding 
 resolution at the meeting of October 1879 conveyed a 
 iTquest to Mr, Parnell to go to America and make an 
 ap})eal to the American people in aid of this movement. 
 I am Jiot at this stao;e ooino; to embark on the considera- 
 tion of what I may call the American branch of the 
 question. I have referred to it incidentally as it occurs 
 in the order of time, and only in that way. 
 
 Mr. Parnell did, in the end of the year 1879, go to Pameii 
 America. He addressed many meetin2;s, and, as has ^?^^ *f 
 
 J O ' ' America 
 
 already apjieared in part, but will appear in fuller detail 
 later, he had an uiq)aralleled reception. All classes in that 
 great community received him, listened to him with 
 sympathy, extended to him practical aid. He had the 
 rare honour of l)eing allowed to address Congress at 
 Washington, Before his departure from America — on 
 the very eve of his departure — he gathered together 
 round him in New York a numl)erof men representative 
 of various shades of political opinion in America, and of 
 various shades of political opinion in relation to Ireland ; 
 and I again repeat that the principle — the right and 
 just principle, as I submit — upon which he proceeded 
 
iqS the IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 was to exclude no man, whatever his antecedent poli- 
 tical opinions or political action had been, from joining 
 the movement, who showed his willingness to join it, 
 and who undertook to give to it honest service. 
 
 I would remind your Lordships again of the descrip- 
 tion given by no friendly pen of what the composition 
 of that American Land League was, I say no friendly 
 pen, because his writing forms part of the libel in this 
 case — I mean Mr. Bagenal. Speaking of the Jjcague, 
 he says in The Irish in America, after' stating that 
 without the assistance of American efold the agitation 
 could not have been started : — 
 
 " The Land League is there supported by every class of Irish- 
 men. The organisation represents to them, according to each man's 
 political creed, the symbol of his national pride, or the instrument 
 of his national revenge. All Irish societies have sui)ported Avitli 
 their dollars this new departure in Irish politics. 'From the skir- 
 mishers ' of the O'Donovan Eossa stamp, Avho hope to make the Irish 
 Land League subservient to their own ends, up to the ])resident of 
 the Land League in America, Mr. Collins, a thoughtful, intelligent 
 lawyer in Boston city, from the miner to the merchant, all con- 
 tributed their money to the common idea, namely, that of obtaining 
 at the very least for their native country the same privileges which 
 each state in the union possesses in relation to the central govern- 
 ment of America." 
 
 Now, my Lords, I ask this question : Is it to be 
 expected, is it in reason to be expected, that, in invoking 
 aid to such a movement as this, Mr. Parnell was to re- 
 quire a certificate of previous political conduct I'roni 
 each man who came into his movement ? AVas he to 
 require some kind of test oath from the man who came 
 into a movement perfectly open, perfectly legal, perfectly 
 justifiable in its ol)jects — objects which have since become 
 part of the policy of the Government of the day — that 
 he was to inquire and .be expected to search into the 
 
IX PARNELL IN AMERICA, jSyg-So 199 
 
 previous history and character of these men ? He would 
 l)e more tlian liuman, he wouhl l)e less than a leader, to 
 take any such course as that. Was he to refuse their 
 assistance in money ? The taunt has often been levelled, 
 scornfully levelled, at the Irish party because of their 
 poverty, and because they had to rely in great measure 
 n])on the help and support of the scattered kindred of 
 their nation in other countries. Was he to refuse their 
 lielp ? AVas lie to say to them — You are giving me this 
 money for a purpose, for an organisation over which I 
 have control, yet I decline to receive it because you, 
 whose hands present it to me, have been mixed uj) in 
 previous, or may now be concerned in some political 
 scheme with which I have no sympathy, and in which I 
 can take no part ? Did the Irish landlords scorn Ameri- 
 can inoney ? Did the Irish landlords, when money was 
 cominii; in hundreds of tliousands, as it has come, from the 
 sons and daughters of the farmers left behind in Ireland, 
 helping them to eke out a miserable existence at home, 
 helping them to discharge the burden of oppressive rents 
 fvhicli they could not make out of the land — in those days 
 did the landlords scorn the American money wdiich came 
 from these sources, and which went into their pockets ? 
 Your Lordships have heard the evidence of one inter- 
 ested witness, whose evidence I shall deal with hereafter 
 at length, and whose evidence I regard, in one branch at 
 least of it, as the most important to the right understand- 
 ing of i\lr. Parnell's position that has yet been presented 
 in this court — I mean the evidence of the spy Le Caron 
 or Beach. Your Lordships have already heard from him 
 of certain unconstitutional movements with which the 
 Irish in America have been mixed up — the raid on 
 Canada, the Fenian movement — of the strength and the 
 breadth of which your Lordships have even yet had no 
 
200 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 adequate idea presented to you. When Le Oaroii tells 
 ns that the U. B. or V. C, or whatever it is to be styled, 
 in 1885 had dwindled down to something like 18,000, 
 but after the rejection of Mr. Gladstone's policy of recon- 
 ciliation, as it has ])een called, rose again to 24,000 in 
 the years 188G and 1887, and is to-day more powerful 
 at those figures than it had been before, how ridiculous 
 and puny such an organisation seems side by side with 
 the Fenian organisation, which, at the very lowest com- 
 putation, in America had, in 1865-66, numbered be- 
 tween 200,000 and 300,000 ! 
 
 My Lords, Mr. Parnell will receive credit in due 
 time. The gratitude of communities to public men is 
 often melancholy in its retrospectiveness. It is not 
 always that the merits of men are recognised in the day 
 in which they live and in which they act. Their motives 
 are misconstrued. Their aims are misrepresented. And 
 within the last few days we have had a notable example 
 of what one may <iall tlie posthumous gratitude of a, 
 nation, when by the grave of one of the greatest men 
 whom this generation has seen in England, the loudest 
 and the shrillest notes in the heene of mourning which 
 went up, came from men who had spent their lives in 
 denouncing the character, in vilifying the motives, and in 
 doingall they could (puny were their eftbrts) to bring infamy 
 upon the head of that distinguished man, John Bright. 
 
 History is full of examples such as that. And I 
 doubt not that the day will come (I think it is coming 
 rapidly) when, through the mists and prejudice which 
 now surround his actions and public life, Mr. Parnell 
 will be recognised as having played the part of a states- 
 man, and, though working for and in the name of Ireland, 
 as having rendered true and loyal service to England by 
 bringing about something like a reconciliation between 
 
PAR NELL IN AMERICA, iSyg-So 
 
 two peoples who have been kept apart, but between whom 
 there never has been, and is not to-day, jnst cause of 
 (piaiTcl or of diflercnce. 
 
 J\Iy Tiords, Mr. Pariiell returned from liis American rameii 
 
 returns 
 
 visit, caUed l)ack l)y the urgency of the election of 1880, 
 and upon his ]'eturn a meeting was held in the Rotunda, 
 l)ul)liu, which lias already been referred to; and I am 
 sure your Lordships will pardon me for again calling 
 attention to it, l)ecause it shows the enormous diffi- 
 culties with wliich Mr, Parnell had undoubtedly to 
 contend. Wo, lias the credit of having brought the Irish 
 in America first into open concert witJi an open constitu- 
 tional movement. He has the credit also of doing the 
 same with a portion of the Irish jieople who looked on 
 the movement (and it is not unnatural that they should 
 have done so) witli distrust and with no hope of redress 
 or benefit coming from any such movement. On the 
 2!)tli of April 1880 the following programme of Parlia- 
 mentary Land Reform was prepared, to be submitted to 
 a land conference proposed to be held at that time, this 
 l)eiiig a (;onference called by the Land League, and the 
 j)rogranime of Parliamentary Land Reform l)eing formu- 
 lated by them. I regard this, my Lords, as an important 
 document. I would ask your Lordships therefore to 
 allow it now to be read. 
 
 "rROGllAMME OF PARLIAMENTARY LAND REFORM Programme 
 
 of Land 
 TO BE SUBMriTED fsso"'' 
 
 TO LAND CONFERENCE 
 ON Thursday, 29tii April 1880 
 
 "The Land Act of 1870 
 
 "In 1870 rarliameiit, considering it 'expedient to amend the 
 law relating to the occnj)ation and ownership of land in Ireland, 
 
202 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 passed what is known as the Land Act. Tliis Act had for olijcct — 
 (1) To provide for the tenant security of tenure ; (2) to vest in him 
 the property which he created in his hokling by the expenditure of 
 his labour and capital \ and (3) to enable tenants to become the 
 owners of their holdings. 
 
 " To give eilect to these objects provision was made to compen- 
 sate for disturbance tenants evicted by the act of tlie landlord : to 
 compensate for the loss of their improvements, tenants voluntaril}' 
 ((uitting their holdings or evicted for non-payment of rent, and to 
 empower the Board of Works to advance money to tenants for the 
 purchase of their holdings, Avhere landlord and tenant had agreed 
 for the sale of same. Has the Act succeeded in giving effect to the 
 intentions of its authors 1 Has it established security of tenure for 
 the tenant farmers of Ireland ? Has it secured to them the pro- 
 perty which their industry and capital may have created in the soil ? 
 Has it prevented the arbitrary inci-ease of rent ? Or has it, even to 
 a limited extent, established a peasant proprietary % To these ques- 
 tions, we regret, there is but one answer — the Land Act has failed. 
 The experience of the last ten years justifies this assertion. Within 
 that period tenants have been capriciously evicted, rents have l)een 
 arbitrarily increased, and imiJrovcTuents have been confiscated as if 
 the Act never existed. To check, if not to render impossible, evic- 
 tion under notices to quit, provision was made (sec. 3) that where a 
 tenant is ' disturbed by the act of the landlord,' the court having 
 jurisdiction in the matter may award him compensation for the loss 
 of his holding. The sum to be so awarded is subject to certain 
 limits i^rescribed by the Act left to the discretion of the chairman 
 (now the county court judge). For example — where a holding is 
 valued at £10 annually or under the sum awarded 'shall in no case 
 exceed seven years' rent.' It was soon judicially decided that, 
 according to the Avording of the section, the judge might award the 
 whole scale of compensation, or any part of it. This discretionar}^ 
 power vested in the coiu't has left the })Osition of the tenant farmer 
 more precarious than ever. In most cases he could not even hazard 
 a guess as to wdiat his rights were, as to what his compensation (if 
 any) might be. In the adjudication of claims everything depends 
 upon the skill and moral constitution of witnesses — upon the 
 ability and uprightness of the judge. Where one chairm;ui — a man 
 of broad views, uninfluenced by class prejudices — might grant 
 ample and fair compensation — a sum sufficiently large to deter a 
 
IX /TS OBJECTS 203 
 
 landlord from evicting his tenants- — another, perliaps of narroAv 
 mind, and one who ow(>d his apjmintment to Landlord patronage, 
 would allow no actual compensation whatever. To this inequality 
 of justice, and to the risks and exjicnses which a tenant should 
 undergo in order to assert his rights, may 1)0 attributed the failure 
 of tlie Land Act to secure to the ' industrious occupier the benefits 
 of his industry,' and to protect him in quiet and peaceal)lc possession 
 of his home. 
 
 "Mpv. Butt's Bill 
 
 "The Land Act having failed to settle the L-ish Land Question, 
 a Bill Avas introduced into Parliament by the late Mr. Butt, which, 
 it was alleged, Avuuld ' enable occupiers to hold their lands upon 
 teiuires sufiiciently secure to induce them to make improvements.' 
 The advocates of this measure contend that the Bill, if passed, 
 Avould 'root the tenant farmers Iti the soil,' by establishing fixity of 
 tenure at fair rents. 
 
 "'Fixity of teiuu'e at fair rents' is, no dou1.)t, an attractive 
 phrase, but its only merit is, that it is attractive. Let us examine 
 it as a ])roposed solution of the Land Question, and first as to 
 'fair rents.' How is the fairness or unfairness of rents to l)e 
 determined ? For an answer we must appeal to part 3 of Mr. 
 IJutt's Bill, wherein provisions are set forth purporting to enable 
 ' the occupiers of land to obtain certain and secure tenures.' Clause 
 ^.T of the Bill provides that the chairman shall give to a tenant 
 a 'decln ration of tenancy,' and shall therein specify the rent to 
 be ])aid b}' him in respect of such premises. Clause 45 ])rovides 
 that when the landlord and tenant shall not agree upon the rent 
 to be so specified, ' the same shall be left to the decision of three 
 arbitrators.' 
 
 "Now, how is a tennnt to obtain a 'declaration of tenancy,' 
 specifying the rent which he is to pay for his holding 1 How is he 
 to obtain the benefit of Mr. Butt's measure 1 By bringing an action 
 against his landlord ! Li the first place, he should serve notice of 
 claim upon the landlord, then file this claim, as claims are now filed 
 under the Land Act, and when the claim was so filed the case as 
 l)etwcen landlord and tenant would be rii)e for hearing. The judge 
 is empowered to specify in the declaration of tenancy the rent as 
 fixed by the arbitrators. But, supjiose the landlord is dissatisfied 
 with the rent so fixed, he may ajipcal to the assizes, and should the 
 
204 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 decisioM of that tribunal be adverse, he may bring the suit to tl\e 
 Court of Land Cases Keserved. Nor is that all, for even when a 
 declaration of tenancy is obtained the landlord would have the right 
 to apply to a court of equity to set aside the said declaration of 
 tenancy on the ground of fraud (claiise 42). 
 
 " From the foregoing it appeal's i)lain that no tenant could 
 derive any benefit from Mr. Butt's Bill unless he had plenty of 
 money to spend in litigation. To obtain a declaration of tenancy, 
 even if no appeal existed, a solicitor should be employed to ])repare 
 notices, a civil engineer to survey the holding, experts to value the 
 improvements claimed by the tenant, and witnesses as to the time 
 of occupancy should be procured. Tlitju there would be the 
 expenses of the hearing, solicitors' costs and counsels' fees. Where 
 could the tenant farmer be found (unless, perhaps, a rich grazier) 
 who would venture to obtain security of tenure at the risk and 
 expense of legal proceedings as above set forth % AVhere is the 
 small tenant (and there are in Ireland 320,000 holdings valued 
 under £8 a year, of which 175,003 are valued under £4) to whom 
 such proceedings would not bring certain ruin % We feel convinced 
 that of the 600,000 tenant farmers in Ireland not more than 
 1 00,000 Avould be able to pay the costs necessary to obtain a 
 declaration of tenancy, and even this minority, having secured 
 such declaration of tenancy from the court after tedious and 
 expensive litigation, would reap therefrom a very dubious 
 benefit. 
 
 " Suppose a declaration of tenancy obtained, the rent fixed for 
 21 years, would the tenant therel)y be secured against eviction ? 
 If the rents had been fixed in all Ireland three years ago, what 
 would be the position of the tenant farmers to-day in face of the 
 fall which has taken place in the value of farm produce % If rents 
 were fixed to-morrow, what guarantee is there that increased foreign 
 competition woidd not cause a still greater fall in the value of land % 
 And yet the advocates of fixitj'^ of tenure Avould tie the tenants of 
 Ireland to conditions in regard to rent which would in all probal)ility 
 bring about their ruin. We cannot, then, undertake the respon- 
 sibility of recommending Mr. Butt's Bill as a settlement of the Land 
 Question, nor can we conceive any permanent measure having for its 
 object the adjustment of rents as between landlord and tenant which 
 to the tyranny of the rent office would not add the uncertainty and 
 peril of the court of law. 
 
TX ITS OBJECTS 205 
 
 " PllOGRAlMME FOR CONSIDERATION OF CONFERENCE 
 
 " Feeling convinced, then, that it is inexpedient to maintain and 
 inipnssil)lc to amend the present relations between landlord and 
 tenant, the (piestion presents itself. What measure of land reform do 
 tlic exigencies of the situation demand 1 The Land Question in 
 Ireland is the tangled heritage of centuries of one-sided class 
 legislation, the successful solution of which will necessitate the 
 greatest care and investigation, together with an anxious desire to 
 do right on the part of all who approach its consideration. Time 
 Avill be needed by the present House of Commons to inform itself 
 as to the merits of a question which is only just conmiencing to be 
 understood in Ireland and is scarcely understood at all in England. 
 
 " Provisional Measure for Suspension of Power of 
 Ejectment, etc;., for Two Years 
 
 " AVe, therefore, I'ecommcnd as an ad interim measure, in view 
 of the desperate condition of the country, until comprehensive 
 rc^fornis can 1)C ]^)crfected, that a V>\\\ should be piished forward with 
 all speed sus[)ending for two years ejectments for non-])ayment of 
 rent, and for ovcrholding, in the case of all holdings value at £10 
 a, 3'ear and luidcr, and suspending for a similar period of two years 
 in the case of any holding whatsoever the right of recovering a 
 higher rent than the poor-law valuation. 
 
 "Proposals for Permanent Keform 
 
 " Next, as to the permanent reform of land tenure in Ireland, 
 we arc of opinion that the establishment of a peasant proprietary is 
 the only solution of the question which will be accepted as final by 
 the country. The Land Act created, as between landlord and 
 tenant, an irregular partnership \n the ownership of the land, giving 
 to the former a riglit to rent for his interest in the soil, and to the 
 latter a right to compensation for the loss of his property therein. 
 Now we venture to assert that this system, whereby two opposing 
 classes have valuable interests in the same property, must cease to 
 exist. The well-being of the State, the preservation of the people, 
 the peace and prosperity of the country, demand the dissf)lution of 
 a jiartnership which has inadc. financial ruin and social chaos the 
 nor!iial condition of Ireland; and the time has arrived when 
 
2o6 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 Parliament must decide Avlictlier a few iion-woiliing men or the 
 great body of industrious and wealth-producing tillers of the soil 
 are to own the land. 
 
 "Creation of a Department of Land Administration 
 FOR Ireland 
 
 " To carry out the permanent reform of land tenure referred to, 
 we propose the creation of a department or commission of land 
 administration for Ireland. This department would be invested 
 with ample powers to deal with all questions relating to land in 
 Ireland : — 
 
 " 1. Where the landlord and tenant of .any holding had agreed 
 for the sale to the tenant of the said holding, the department would 
 execute the necessary conveyance to the tenant, and advance him 
 the whole or part of the purchase money, and upon such advance 
 being made by the department such holding would be deemed to 
 be charged with an annuity of £5 for every £100 of such advance, 
 and so in proportion for any less sums, such annuity to be limited 
 in favour of the department, and to be declared to be repayable in 
 the term of 35 years. 
 
 " 2. Where a tenant tendered to the landlord for the purchase 
 of his holding a sum erpial to 20 years of the poor-law valuation 
 thereof, the department would execute the conveyance of the said 
 holding to the tenant, and would be empowered to advance to the 
 tenant the whole or any part of the purcliase money, the repayment 
 of which would be secured as set forth in the case of voluntary 
 sales. 
 
 " 3. The department would be empowered to acqiiire the owner- 
 ship of any estate upon tendering to the owner thereof a sum equal 
 to 20 years of the poor-law valuation of such estate, and to let 
 said estate to the tenants at a rent equal to 'i\ per cent of the 
 purchase money thereof. 
 
 " 4. The department or the court having jurisdiction in this 
 matter would be empowered to determine the rights and priorities 
 of the several persons entitled to or having charges upon or other- 
 wise interested in any holding conveyed as al)ove muntioneil, and 
 would distribute the purchase money in accordance Avith such rights 
 and priorities, and when any monies arising from a sale were not 
 immediately distributable, the department would have a right to 
 
IX ITS OBJECTS 207 
 
 invest the said monies for the benefit of the parties entitled 
 thereto. 
 
 " Provision would be made Avhereby the Treasury would from 
 time to time ndvance to the department such sums of money as 
 would be roquifcd for the purchases above mentioned. 
 
 "Easy Transfer of Land, Compulsory Registration, etc. 
 
 " To render the proposed change in the tenure of land effectual 
 it Avould be necessary to make provision for the cheap and simple 
 transfer of immovalde property. To effect this an organic reform 
 of the Inw of real property Avould be requisite. The Statute of 
 Uses should be repealed, distinctions between ' legal ' and ' equitable ' 
 interests abolished, and the law of entail swept away. In short, the 
 laws relating to land should be assimilated as closely as possible to 
 the laws relating to personal property. The Landed Estates Court 
 Avould be transferred to the Department of Land Administration, 
 its system of procedure cheapened and improved. In each county 
 in Ireland there would be established a registry office wherein all 
 owners of land would be compelled to register their titles, wherein 
 also would be registered mortgages and all charges and interests 
 whatsoever. Titles so registered (in accordance with rules provided 
 for the purpose) would be made indefeasible. 
 
 " With such a system of registration established and legal phrase- 
 ology in conveyancing abolished, a holding of land might be trans- 
 ferred from one owner to another as cheaply as a share in a ship or 
 money in the funds, and thus no apparent obstacle would stand in 
 the way of the Department of Land Administration from carrying 
 out the reforms which we have suggested, reforms which, it may be 
 hoped, will bring ])rospcrity and contentment to an impoverished 
 and distracted country. 
 
 " (Signed) Charles S. Parnell. 
 
 J. J. Louden. 
 
 A. J. Kettle. 
 
 Wi\r. Kelly. 
 
 Patrick Egan." 
 
 I think your Lordships will agree that that is cer- 
 taiuly a remarkable document to be issued by a band 
 of criminal conspirators. In })art it unfolds a great 
 
2o8 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 scheme of land reform, ca portion of which is applicable 
 to England as well as to Ireland, and a portion of which 
 has been struggled for, for years, by a number of land 
 reformers in this country. A portion of the scheme is 
 directed to a temporary stay, in the crisis through which 
 the country was then passing, of the right of eviction, 
 leaving untouched the ordinary rights which ordinary 
 creditors have against their debtors, leaving those rights 
 to the landlords as creditors of their tenants to proceed 
 by either process of law, or if they are so minded, to 
 distrain, but directed to a temporary stay of eviction 
 and of eviction only ; that being the scheme which 
 yesterday, in connection with the Compensation for Dis- 
 turbance Bill, I pointed out to your Lordships was form- 
 ally introduced in the House of Commons at the instance 
 of the Land League by Mr. O'Connor Power, then one 
 of the members for Mayo, and the principle of which 
 was afterwards adopted by the Government of the day 
 and passed, by the second reading of the Compensation 
 for Disturbance Bill, through that House. 
 
 In connection with that Bill I have to mention one 
 other incident not unimportant. 1 pointed out yester- 
 day the need in the interests of public peace, in the 
 opinion of the Irish Secretary, Mr. Forster, for some 
 such protective measure. I omitted in that connection 
 to mention that so strongly was he impressed Avitli that 
 necessity that, what afterwards l)ecanie the Compensa- 
 tion for Disturbance Bill he originally tacked on as an 
 additional clause to the ])ill known by the name of 
 the Relief of Distress Bill, which was in truth, as I 
 pointed out, more directly and more immediately a 
 Relief of Landlord Bill. I mean the bill which enabled 
 the advance of £1,100,000 out of the surplus Irish 
 Church funds to the Irish landlords with no interest for 
 
IX 77 '^ OBJECTS 209 
 
 two years, and after tliat date at one per cent only. 
 It was a misfortune, I tliink, that that course was not 
 persevered in, because undoubtedly it would have offered 
 an inducement to the powerful party in the House of 
 Lords, who ultimately rejected it, to have passed it, 
 provided it was made a })art of and dependent upon the 
 llelief of Distress J]ill. 
 
 Further your Lordships will observe that that pro- 
 gramme of reform points to the creation of an occupying 
 proprietorship, upon lines now adopted I might almost 
 say l)y both parties in the State and it proposes terms 
 of settlement that the landlords to-day would be only 
 too glad to accept. But they have missed their oppor- 
 tunity, an opportunity which they are not likely, unless 
 indeed there Ije a revolution in prices, to get again. 
 But this was offered to them, pressed upon them, pressed 
 upon the pul)lic by the representatives of the Lish 
 })eople, backed up with remarkable unanimity by the 
 Irish people themselves, at the instance of men whom 
 it is here sought to stigmatise as disturbers of the peace, 
 who do not desire the contentment of their country, 
 because, forsooth, they live upon agitation. 
 
 Your Lordslii})S will observe, or may have observed, 
 thnt tliere was one name wanting in that programme. 
 It is the name of i\Ir. Michael Uavitt. In the Land 
 League movement, as in every movement, there is a 
 section more advanced, and there is a section less ad- 
 vanced. j\[r. Davitt belonged to the more advanced 
 section, and lie thought (and subsequent events have 
 justified his judgment) that the terms offered to the 
 Irish landlords in that programme were too favourable, 
 lie thought that tlie terms offered to the Irish landlords 
 in that programme were t(^rins which the Irish tenants 
 would not be alile successfullv to carrv throuo-h and 
 
 P 
 
2IO THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 fulfil. And he did desire, and he does desire, that the 
 settlement of the question shall be thorough in the 
 sense not only that it shall be just, but that it should be 
 upon such a basis as to afford a reasonable Ijelief that 
 the obligations undertaken by the tenants, with a view- 
 to the acquirement of their proprietary interest in the 
 soil, shall be faitlifully carried out and ol)served. 
 
 Public My Lords, following that programme was the dis- 
 
 cussion of it in a pul)lic conference held on the 29tli 
 
 Speech by April, and on that day Mr. Parnell made the speech I 
 
 Mi.Paniell. ^ ' •' , ^ 
 
 am about to read. llie first resolution was one 
 addressed to the ad interim measure, which I ought 
 to have told your Lordships embraced the suspension, 
 for a temporary period of two years, of the right of 
 recovering a higher rent than the poor law valuation, 
 and left the right to distrain and to sue up to the limit 
 of the poor law valuation. 
 
 " In proposing this first resolution I tliink tlnit I may assume 
 that, however we may difVer as to the best method for obtaining a 
 final solution of the Tjand Question, every one will admit that it will 
 be impossible to obtain this final solution in the two months that 
 yet remain of the present session of Parliament, and that eonse- 
 quently one of the most practical things to which we can devote 
 our attention to-day, will be the devising of some measures by which 
 we can prevent the great distress and social dist\irbancc which 
 must result if something is not done to check the unbounded i)Ower 
 which the law gives to the landlord over the tenant at the })resent 
 moment. You Avill observe that this resolution deals with tAvo 
 classes of tenants. First of all, a class of tenants who are valued 
 at £10 a year and under; in their case it proposes that the right 
 of ejectment for non-payment of rent shoidd be suspended for two 
 years ; and as regards tenants over £10 a year, it proposes that no 
 higher rent than the ordinance valuation should be recoverable 
 during a similar period of two years. I find that there are in 
 Ireland about 320,000 holdings valued under £8 a year, and of 
 those 175,000 are valued under £-1 a year, and it happens that it 
 
ITS OBJECTS 211 
 
 is just tins class of tenants that Mr. Gladstone's Land Act accords 
 the greatest inducement to the landlord to get rid of, and to seize 
 the i)resent crisis in agricultural matters for the jjurpose of getting 
 rid of them. Under Mr. Gladstone's Land Act" (that is, the Act of 
 1870) "tenants valued at £10 and under, if disturbed by the act 
 of the landlord, were entitled to seven years' rent as compensation." 
 
 That is not strictly so ; that was the maximum for 
 which compensation conkl be given, not that they were 
 entitled to it. Then there is an internqjtion by The 
 O'Donoghiie, ]\I.P., who asks whether there may be an 
 opportunity of moving an amendment to the resolution. 
 Then ]\lr. Parnell proceeds :- — 
 
 " Perhaps I might explain to my honourable friend it is per- 
 fectly competent for any one to move an amendment to this resolu- 
 tion or substitute a resolution for it ; the Land League invites and 
 (h'sires full discussion. Tliis conference has been brought together 
 for the pniposc of consultaticm, and the Land Lengiie does not 
 desire in assembling the gentlemen comjiosing this conference to 
 tie them down to the })rogramme it puts before the conference. It 
 was our duty to prc})arc a ])rogramme ; a committee was appointed 
 for that purpose, and jjublished the programme so prepared on 
 Monday last ; it has now been before the country for several days, 
 and we trust and hope that one of the results will be that a very 
 full discussion will take place as to the propositions made by the 
 committee of the Land League. Now, I was just saying that in 
 the case of tenants valued at £10 a year and under, the Land Act 
 2)rovided that if disturbed by tlie act of the landlord, the Chairman 
 may award to such tenant seven years' rent in lieu of compensation, 
 in addition to sums for permanent improvements ; l)ut if such a 
 tenant bo evicted for non-payment of rent, he loses all claim to this 
 seven years' com])ensation for disturbance, and he is entitled to 
 oidy whatever the Chaiiman may award him for permanent improve- 
 ments. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is just this class of tenants who 
 are most stricken to the ground by the present calamit}^ ; many of 
 them are in a state of starvation and unable to pay any rent at all, 
 and if the landlord is left in full possession of the rights which the 
 Jjand Act of 1870 gives him, and if lie proceeds to exact those 
 
212 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 riglits, the result will be, in the west of Ireland, during this coming 
 autumn and winter, scenes which we all must shudder to look for- 
 ward to; and therefore I think that one of the first duties of the 
 land reformers should be to place the Legislature in possession of 
 the circumstances affecting these 320,000 small tenants, to point 
 out their situation and to place before the Legislature a method 
 whereby time may be obtained for a solution of this (piestion, 
 and the frightful evils which we anticipate will follow. AVe don't 
 desire more than an Act suspending the ample powers which the 
 law at present gives in the case of those small tenants. I, myself, 
 think that no Land Act can reach the case, no permanent Land Act 
 can reach the case, of the majority ; many of them, perhaps the 
 majority, are crowded upon small holdings of poor lands in the west 
 of L^eland, holdings on which, in the best of times, they can scarcely 
 earn a livelihood and pay the rent. As a matter of fact, they have 
 not been paying the rent out of their land, they have been paying 
 it by working as day labourers in England and Scotland for other 
 farmers, or by working for larger farmers in their own neighbour- 
 hood. And the question as to how these 320,000 tenant farmers 
 are to be dealt with in a permanent enactment is one that requires 
 the greatest consideration and care. I say, then, protect these 
 people for a year or two until the Legislature has had time to gi\'e 
 that consideration which we may assume it is willing to give to their 
 case. Then the second part of the resolution deals more particularly 
 with tenants valued at a higher rate than £10 ; it suspends for a 
 period of two years the right of recovering a higher rent than the 
 poor-law valuation. Now I think everybody will agree with me that 
 the poor-law valuation is at the outset the highest rent any tenant 
 can afford to pay. Save under very exceptional circumstances, there 
 are perhaps some of the rich grazing lands which reach a higher 
 value than the poor-law valuation, but s[)eaking as a general rule 
 of holdings valued over £10 throughout Ireland, I thiidc everybody 
 will admit, landlords and tenants, that a higher rent than the pcjor- 
 law valuation cannot be j)aid under the present circumstances for 
 such holdings. In fact, I believe that many landlords have already 
 throughout Ireland reduced their rents to this valuation, and I am 
 sure we shall not be accused of asking anything very exorbitant 
 when we ask that until Parliament has had time to investigate this 
 difhcult land question, this class of tenants, who have a large pro- 
 perty, many of them invested in their holdings, valuable stock and 
 
IX ITS OBJECTS 213 
 
 so fortli, should bo protected from those landlords who desire to run 
 counter to all dictates of common sense, by desiring to exact a higher 
 rent tlian the poor-law valuation." 
 
 JM}' [jords, liow docs it come that these documents 
 have not been presented before to your Lordships ? If 
 this case were to be fairly presented in a broad and just 
 mid a, statesmnnlike fashion, liow comes it that all these 
 documents, I think I must be right in saying, have come 
 ns a revelation upon your Lordshij^s ? ]\ly Lords, nothing 
 but party animosity, the judgment of men distorted by 
 prejudice, carried away by the desire and impulse of 
 blockening the character of political opponents, can 
 account for the way in which the Attorney-General has 
 been imperfectly instructed in the presentation of this 
 case, 1 thiidv it is a grave matter. I take leave to say 
 it is a grave scandal. 
 
 Now, my Lords, 1 shall ask your attention for a 
 moment or two, first of all to the published declarations 
 of this League. I submit that it is an organisation legiti- 
 mate in its object, legitimate in its means. I think 
 ncitlier of those propositions will be gainsaid. It pro- 
 ])oses a comprehensive mode of dealing with the hisli land 
 dilHculty, and whether your ]^ordslii])S agree with it or 
 not (of course upon that your Lordships are called upon 
 to express no opinion), every man in the country, any 
 coml)ination of men in the country, had a peifect right 
 to formulate that programme, and to put it for considera- 
 tion and report before the country. 
 
 Now as to its means. For the moment I am dealing Land 
 with its avowed means. Is there anything in those jtrMeans. 
 rules that have been read, in the programme which I 
 have read, which points to the use of illegal means ? I 
 say, nothing — I submit, nothing. 
 
 I will deal presently with the allegations as to 
 
214 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 the means wliicli were in fact used ; I am dealing with 
 the avowed objects, the avowed means, at present. Jf" 
 I am so far right, my Lords, it follows that, if this 
 case is to be tried by the test of conspiracy, no men 
 who give their adhesion to this scheme propounding 
 those objects and those means would be party, by 
 mere membership of the League, in a criminal con- 
 spiracy. 
 
 I hope your Lordships follow the emphasis I lay on 
 the words, "by mere membership of the League." Of 
 course, if beyond that, apart from its avowed ol)jects 
 and its avowed means, individuals, or a combination of 
 individuals, resort to the use of criminal means, th(?y are 
 liable for that resort to criminal means, but they are not 
 liable merely by reason of their membership of the 
 League established with the object of advocating such 
 measures. 
 
 Your Lordships will recollect that there are rules 
 excluding from membership persons who take the })art 
 of what one may call the landlords' side — who play the 
 part of evictors, who assist at evictions, who take the 
 farms of those evicted, and so forth. That is perfectly 
 legitimate ; they have a perfect right to say, we shall 
 allow no landlord, no bailiff, no process-server into our 
 ranks ; we shall admit no man who, in this great national 
 movement, shows such a want of regard to the oeneral 
 interests as to be a party to a proceeding which, of 
 course, would paralyse the protective efforts of the 
 League by taking the farms from which men have been 
 evicted, as the rules say, " because of inability to pay 
 an excessive rent." 
 Boycotting. But ouc otlicr thing, my Lords, I must say. I desire 
 to deal, your Lordships, I am sure, will understand, 
 thoroughly and candidly with the whole matter. It 
 
ITS MEANS 215 
 
 must be admitted that prominent members of tlie League 
 have advocated boycotting. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, in this matter of boycotting, may I be 
 forgiven for using the celebrated exclamation of Dr. 
 Jolmson, and say: "Let ns clear our minds of cant." 
 Boycotting lias existed from the earliest times that 
 liunian society existed. It is only a question of degree. 
 U]) to a certain point, boycotting is not only not 
 criminal, but I say is justifiable and is right. For what 
 docs boycotting mean ? It means the focussing of the 
 opinion of the community in condemnation of the con- 
 du(*t of an individual of that community who offends 
 tljc general sense of propriety, or offends against its 
 goieral interests. Is there no boycotting at the bar ? 
 Is there no boycotting in the other professions ? Is there 
 no boycotting in the Church 1 Is there no boycotting 
 in politics ? Is there no l:)oycotting of tradesmen in 
 election times ? What is the meaning of " Sending a 
 man to Coventry ? " I say that boycotting, — I am not 
 justifying intimidation, I am not justifying force, I am 
 not justifying violence in connection with it ; those are 
 diiFerent things — I am talking of an act of moral repre- 
 hension called boycotting, and I say it always has existed 
 and alwa^^s will exist. 
 
 M y Lords, if I were to search ancient records, histori- 
 cal, sacred records, I could point to man}^ instances of 
 l)oycotting ; but I need not go far back. We have had 
 in our days very remarkable instances, not only of boy- 
 cotting, but effective and useful boycotting. What 
 was the action of our great colonies when the ill-judged 
 policy of this country sent them the criminal popu- 
 lation, the olfscouring of the old world, as the rotten 
 seed from which their fresh population was to spring. 
 What did they do ? Why, they simply boycotted the 
 
2i6 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 Government officials in Australia. The most notal^lc 
 instance of all was in the Cape Colony, where they 
 boycotted the governor, declined to serve him, declined 
 to supply him with horses, declined to supply him with 
 provisions until the objectionaljle ship which was imjiort- 
 ino; and seeking to land the offscourino- of this nation, 
 took its wretched burthen to another place. 
 
 My Lords, I say more : that apart from intimida- 
 tion, apart from violence, individual boycotting, or 
 boycotting in combination is neither actionable nor 
 criminal, unless it takes place under circumstances 
 which would warrant a jury in finding as a fact that the 
 object was not merely reprehension of supposed mis- 
 conduct, but that the object was to injure the individual 
 against whom it was directed. If men may conil)ine for 
 the protection of their own interests, I ask why, in the 
 name of good sense, may they not combine to denounce, 
 to reprehend, to condemn the conduct of those who act 
 in a way which they believe to be inimical to their best 
 interests ? 
 
 I will deal of course with the allegation of violence 
 and of intimidation hereafter. But, my Lords, I say 
 boldly and at once, that, as regards cases put before 
 this court in evidence, of instances which began and 
 which ended in boycotting, except a passing reference 
 or two, I shall trouble the court with no argument 
 whatever. It is not the case which this Connnission 
 was appointed to try. Nobody will allege it. The case 
 that this Commission was appointed to try were certain 
 charges and allegations, the point, the force, the pith of 
 which were charges of direct complicity w4th crime. Of 
 course I must meet, and will meet by an examination 
 of the evidence, the suggestion put forward, and ] shall 
 demonstrate that the suc^o-estion is not well founded 
 
ITS MEANS 217 
 
 upon the facts, that the sanction of boycotting was out- 
 rage and murder, and I shall examine the matter care- 
 fully and ask your Lordshij^s' attention in following the 
 examination of these cases, and of the evidence by which 
 that suggestion is sought to be supported. 
 
 But again I say, and I wish to impress this upon 
 your Lordships' minds, that while I admit that boycotting 
 has occurred to an extent which in many, or at all 
 events in several, proven cases is to be condemned, to l)e 
 regretted, and which I do not seek to defend or to justify 
 — I would again remind your Lordships, if I am right 
 in the proposition that I have laid down, that those 
 wlio joined the Land League are liable as conspirators, 
 only in respect of the programme of means and objects 
 which the Land League adopted, and that therefore there 
 may Ite considei'ations as regards individual cases which 
 may determine tlie view your Lordships take of the con- 
 du('t of the persons so olfending, but which do not justify 
 your Lordships in applying to that conduct, and in 
 relation to other persons, the doctrine of vicarious 
 resjtonsibility. 
 
 As regards denunciations of land-grabbing I sliall 
 deal with tliat matter when I come to the consideration 
 of the evidence ; but I do w^isli to make my submission 
 clear to your Lordships' minds that if it w'as necessary, 
 or it is enough for me to say if it was justifiable, for 
 tlie tenants to coml)ine for their own self-jirotection, 
 then it was perfectly justifial)le, as I submit, that they 
 should reprehend, and should blame, and should de- 
 nounce persons who, by taking farms from which other 
 tenants had been unjustly evicted, should render to a 
 gi eat extent useless the power of their combination ; 
 because, of course, it o1)viously follows — Mr. Hancock's 
 e^ idence is a cjood illustration of it — that the work of 
 
2i8 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 eviction by the landlord is facilitated if there is nothing 
 to stay his hand in the work of eviction, if the monKiiit 
 he has got rid of one tenant he can get another tenant 
 who will come in and promise to pay him, it may be, an 
 enhanced rent. And thus it is, as ]\Ir. Hancock pointed 
 out in the evidence, with which two days ago I troubled 
 your Lordships, that the effective sanction of the tenant 
 right in Ulster was the reprehension of the community 
 which fixed itself on the man who took a farm from 
 which another had been evicted. 
 
 My Lords, as I have shown, land-grabbing has been 
 denounced in former times in L^eland, and I do pray 
 your Lordships to remember that, when the whole of 
 this story, the whole of this record of ten years, is thrown 
 down before your Lordships and laid at the door of the 
 Land League, it is not presenting the case in a fair 
 way. To compare ten years of revolution, ten years 
 during a great portion of which there was undoubtedly 
 acute and widespread distress, to compare those ten 
 years with a like period of comparative prosperity — ibr 
 the prosperity of L'cland has been comparative at the 
 best — I say that is not a fair way to look at it. 
 
 My Lords, the records I have disclosed before your 
 Lordships, establish as clearly as anything, this — that in 
 every recurrent period of distress in L-eland, when land- 
 lords were forcing the exaction of their rights, when 
 there was no Land League to blame, this boycotting, 
 this land-grabbing, and crimes of a serious kind, have 
 with the recurrent distress aoain and aoain recurred. 
 
 Up to the end of the year 1879, and indeed — and 
 it is rather a significant fact — up to the date of the 
 rejection by the House of Lords of the Compensation 
 for Disturbance Bill, the Tiand Leajxue in L'cland had 
 made but comparatively little way. It had been taken 
 
ITS MEANS 219 
 
 up eagerly in Mayo, and in part of Galway ; but your 
 Lordships will find that as regards the rest of Ireland 
 it liad made but little way. But after the rejection of 
 tlint bill, Land League brandies sprang up over the 
 whole of Ireland, and I doubt if there was to be found a 
 parish in the whole of Ireland in which there was not a 
 locnl Land League organisation. The two reasons why 
 it did not spread at first were these : there was hope 
 that the Legislature would interpose some protection, 
 but there was the further and perhaps even the stronger 
 reason, that the secret societies from the outset, in large 
 mensure at least, opposed the Land League movement. 
 And I am about to call your Lordshij^s' attention to a 
 remarkable illustration of that — two remarkable illustra- 
 tions of that. 
 
 On the 8th of May 1880 a meeting was held in the Moeting 
 Rotunda., Dublin, attended by a number of members of ■J>„tun.k, 
 J\'irlia,ment and others, with Mr. Paruell in the chair. ^'■''>' ^^^'^'• 
 Ihifc before that meeting, and probal)ly in anticipation 
 of tliat meeting — I know not — there had been issued, 
 signed by the Executive of the Irish Republican 
 Brotherhood, a somewhat remarkable document — the 
 date of that document is ]\Iarch 1880 — published in 
 Ireland. It is longer, my Lords, than the passage I am 
 about to read to you, but I spare your Lordships as 
 nnich as I can. 
 
 It proceeds thus : — 
 
 " At a time like the present, when pohtical adventurers and 
 West-Britisliers are scranibHng for parHamentary honours, who, in 
 their eagerness to obtain the coveted prize of a seat in the British 
 Legislature, are playing on the credulity of many of our country- 
 men l)y passing themselves off as Nationalists, we consider it our 
 duty to say a few words to yon on the subject. It is inconsistent 
 with the luinciplcs of true nationality for any patriotic Irishman to 
 accept a scat in nn nlicn Parliament, because by so doing he 
 
220 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 surrenders his rights and the riglits of his country into the hands of 
 men who are opposed to its best interests, and becomes a ]iar- 
 ticipator in the alien sj'stem which keeps Ireland enslaved. 'I'lie 
 Irishman who becomes a member of it is either the victim of some 
 mental delusion, a slave, or an enemy. We do not address you 
 merely for the purpose of reminding you of all this constitutional 
 garroting and plundering of our country, of which even the ' Ijond ' 
 of eighty years' duration affords such ample evidence, but to 
 prevent the smallest section of our brethren from being betrayed 
 into active participation in the coming elections by the plausible 
 utterances or avowals of National princi})lcs of any of the can- 
 didates, no matter who he or they may be." 
 
 My Lords, the representatives of those persons did 
 not stop there ; they carried out their opposition into 
 active practice. 
 
 At about the same time Mr. Parnell, accompanied l)y 
 some other of the present members of his party — and ] 
 think this is only one of several instances — went down 
 to the county of Wexford and addressed an election 
 meeting in support of a particular candidate. 
 
 The sympathisers with this document, March 1880, 
 attended and broke up that meeting ; possessed them- 
 selves of the platform, hustled Mr. Parnell and his 
 friends, and with great difliculty they managed to get 
 back to the railway station in safety. 
 
 Other things occurred of the same kind in other 
 places, and surely it would have been right, surely it 
 would have been fair, to have given some kind of 
 inkling to your Lordships of the difficulties in which he, 
 Mr. Parnell, stood, when endeavouring upon a broad, 
 an open, a national platform, to withdraw the adherents 
 of such teaching into a constitutional and into a legiti- 
 mate movement. 
 
 My Lords, the meeting to which I referred at the 
 Rotunda is again a significant one. Its report is 
 
ITS MEANS 
 
 published in The Nation of the 8th of May 1880, but 
 in fact it was a public meeting which followed the 
 conference of the 29th of April 1880. On that occasion 
 a representative of the Fenian movement boldly came 
 forward to propose an amendment, and then followed a 
 scene witli wJiicli I will not trouble you, but a repetition 
 in the Rotunda of tlie successful attempt in Enniscorthy 
 to drive tlie tenants of tlie platform from tlieir position, 
 and get the control of the meeting. Mr. OTlanlon 
 souglit to propose this resolution, and got so far as 
 reading part of it : — 
 
 "That while the Nationalists of Dublin are willing to make 
 any sacrifices (hisses) to the demanfls of the cultivators of the soil 
 (internn)tions), they protest against the deceptive action of Mr. 
 Parnell and other persons who arc trying to divert the people from 
 the proper course to independence ; and that while some of the 
 greatest statesmen (the whistling and noise rendered great part of 
 the resolution dumb show) . . . the line of action pursued by the 
 Nati(uial Land League has been injurious and deceptive." 
 
 Then Mr. O'llanlon tore up his resolution, left the 
 platform, and went awny. 
 
 15ut, my Lords, he wrote to the papers his views tlic 
 next day, and this is the letter :■ — • 
 
 " 83 Amiens Street, Dublin, 
 "30//i April 1880. 
 
 "Sir — As I did not care that my Resolution should get into 
 the papers I tore it up and threw the fraginents on the platform. 
 Since, however, you have jiublished an incorrect coj)y of it, I have 
 thought 3^ou might as well have the exact words of the original. 
 Thoy were : ' Kesolved — That, while we, the Nationalists of Dublin, 
 are ready to make any sacrifice to give the land to those who cultivate 
 it, we protest against the deceptive policy of heaven-sent champions 
 and ex-political prisoners " — 
 
 (a reference to j\Ir. Davitt, who had been drummed out 
 of the ranks). 
 
222 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 "who are trying to seduce the people from the straight road to 
 independence into the corrupt and crooked ways by Avhicli renegades 
 and persons of questionable character obtain seats in the English 
 Parliament.' To read this Resolution as a protest against the 
 misleading and demoralising tactics of a certain clicpie in the Land 
 League, and then to let the meeting go on as it might, was the only 
 purpose that brought me and my friends to the meeting at the Rotunda 
 on Thursday night. Mr. Parnell and Mr. Davitt and others of their 
 party, by their dictatorial and high-handed proceedings, were very 
 near forcing us to go further than we had intended. These gentle- 
 men are deceiving the poor peasantry of L'eland for purposes which 
 I will not name, lest I might do some of them injustice ; but I ask, 
 how can sane men believe that any English Government will })ass 
 the sweeping measures that are demanded by the Land League ? 
 It looks as though these land reformers were insisting upon the 
 impossible in order to keep up a delusion which may be profitable 
 to individuals, but is surely ruining the unhappy victims of false 
 hopes and reckless promises. — I am. Sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " Edward O'Hanlon." 
 
 My Lords, I confess myself to have some sympatliy 
 witli Mr. O'llanlon's expressions from the point of view 
 from which he regarded the open movement. Tlie past 
 liistory of constitutional agitation had shown but poor 
 results ; again and again had sacrifices been made, and 
 still no remedial measures were forthcoming ; and then 
 the class of men to which O'llanlon belonged, eml)arked 
 it may be on a hopeless and condemnable enterprise, 
 carrying, at any rate, their lives and their liberties in 
 their hands, — and in despair of good by other methods, 
 resorted to desperate and unconstitutional ones. 1 
 cannot express surprise that men should so think of 
 past history — of the fruitless efforts for constitutional 
 redress — that men like him should feel distrust — 
 should feel a want of hope, and should doul)t whether 
 the programme of the Land League, fulfilled as it is 
 to-day, in great measure, was not indeed an impossible 
 
ITS MEANS 223 
 
 task to set for accomplishment before the Irish peo2)le l)y 
 constitutional methods. 
 
 I am reminded, by my learned friend, of one remark- 
 able witness called before your Lordships, I mean the 
 convict Delaney, who was one of the persons at this 
 meeting, taking part with O'Hanlon, but who went on 
 to say— whether reliably you may judge hereafter — who 
 went on to say, that an order w^eut forth after this 
 meeting in the Eotunda, that the Fenians were to 
 support the Land League, an order which came I think 
 he said from, amongst others, Egan, Brennan, and 
 Davitt — Davitt being the man who was held up to 
 reproach as an ex-j^olitical prisoner. 
 
 There is a postscript to O'llanlon's letter, by the way, 
 which I did not read : — 
 
 "]\Iay I ask Mr. Parncll to tell the public -wjiat lie lias done 
 uitli the 20 dollars he got for lead from some Irishmen in 
 America." 
 
 A further letter from the executive of the L K. B., 
 which I read from The Nation of the 18th of May, is in 
 these terms : — 
 
 " Sir — AVe respectfully rerpiest that 3'ou will give insertion to 
 the following in your next issue. At the meeting in the Rotunda 
 on Thurs(hiy last a few irres])onsible and unauthorised indi- 
 viduals undertook the role of protesting against the agitators in the 
 name of the National party." 
 
 My Lords, at that date tlie name " National party " 
 appears to have the meaning of a physical force party. 
 
 " Now, ngainst the terms of the resolution which Avas sought to 
 be ]n-oposed l)y the men referred to, we have nothing to say ; we 
 emphatically deny any complicity in the act, and repudiate its 
 identity with the Nationalists of Ireland. 
 
 " riic agitators themselves claim to be Nationalists when it suits 
 their purpose, no matter whether they hold forth in the Home liule 
 
224 '^^lE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 League, the Land League, at the liustings, or that exalted platform, 
 the tioor of the British House of Commons. We have borne with 
 their vapourings and false doctrines, as well as their treachcruus 
 designs against the freedom and national independence of Ireland, 
 fully aware that the sham of the ' new departure ' would be short- 
 lived, and would, in its final collapse, bring unutterable political 
 ruin to all its promoters. 
 
 "To this end we are resolved to let them have rope enough; 
 but, as they are not content with this forbearance, and are occasion- 
 ally sheltering themselves behind the sacred name of L'ish Nation- 
 ality, we feel constrained to warn them that if they persevere in 
 such a course we shall be obliged to adopt measures that will end 
 their career much sooner than anticipated. 
 
 " ' Thoughts of the painful present and the past 
 ]\Iust bring the hour of reckoning at last.' 
 
 " By Order, 
 
 "Executive of the L K. B." 
 
 Now, my Lords, I have said, after the rejection of 
 the Compensation for Disturl)ance Bill, the increase of 
 the Land League Branches was rapid and enormous, and 
 I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind iii reference 
 to its proceedings, and the consideration of the question 
 of the control which could reasonably be expected of 
 those who were at its head over its branches, that it did 
 not spring like Minerva from the brain of Jove, fully 
 equipped and fully armed. It was long before it came 
 under full and complete discipline. Li fact, it had not 
 come under full and complete discipline and control 
 when in an evil moment, as I hope 1 shall demonstrate, 
 the Government took the course, under circumstances 
 which I will presently explain, of suppressing its action 
 altogether, imprisoning its leaders, and placing it in a 
 state of absolutely complete disorganisation. 
 
 My Lords, I think I have made at all events suffiei- 
 
ITS MEANS 225 
 
 eiitJy clear the Ijasis \i\^on which, when I come to ti.c Law of 
 examine the evidence, I shall proceed to argue. I say, in '^o"'i'''"^J- 
 order to make my ])osition clear, that, even applying the 
 vague, the loose formula of the law of conspiracy, which 
 has never found any definite expression in the Statute- 
 book, tJiis proposition is sound, that those acting in 
 concerl, for l>revity called conspirators, are only re- 
 sponsible for tlie acts of co-conspirators, where such acts 
 are of a kind and class agreed on hy all the conspirators 
 to be done or committed in furtherance of the common 
 design. And unless therefore it can be shown — I say 
 that the evidence utterly fails to establish it — that Mr. 
 Parnell (taking him as an example) was a party to the use 
 of nnirdc]' and outnige, as a pnrt of the agreed means and 
 metliods of the Land League, he is not liable, criminally 
 or otherwise. I subnvit at this point that, if one of your 
 |jordRhi])s were trying this in a criminal court on a 
 clinrge of direct complicity w4th crime, there is not, even 
 as tJie cnse now stands, any case which your Lordships 
 would think it right to submit to a jury for their con- 
 sideration. And I would remind your Lordships, before 
 I come to the consideration of the evidence, of one re- The Times 
 markable and striking fact. It is this ; that in every ^^''^' 
 case where there has l)een proof of outrage by persons- 
 who came to swear that they did it in concert with 
 persons who were, or who professed to be, Land 
 Lenguers, that in every single case without exception, 
 so far as I know, the perpetrators were members of 
 secret societies, and apparently many of them sworn in 
 as members of secret societies, before they joined in the 
 commission or perpetration of outrages. I do not recall, 
 and I thiidv I am right in saying that there is no excep- 
 tion to the broad general statement I have made, and I 
 will prny your Lordships to dwell upon the significance 
 
 Q 
 
226 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 
 
 of that fact, l3ecaiise if the case presented were a true 
 case, namely, that crime and outrage were part of the 
 agreed means and methods for effecting the objects of 
 the alleged conspiracy, if the systematic perpetration of 
 crime and outrao-e were one of the ao;reed instruments 
 of their conspiracy, how comes it that there is not one 
 single case of direct participation in outrage proved — I 
 believe I am literally right — in which the perpetrator 
 is not shown to have been a member of a secret society 
 and not merely of the Land League ? 
 
 And, my Lords, that I am not putting the case as 
 presented by The Times too high, let me remind your 
 Lordships of a statement, absurd and ludicrous though 
 it be, to which the Attorney -General gave utterance 
 when he told your Lordships that he would prove that 
 not in one case, or an isolated case, but that the system 
 was for Mr. Egan, or Mr. Brennan, or Mr. Biggar, as 
 the case might be, to dole out £20 or £30 in Dublin, 
 which was handed to a jierson to take to j^^i'i'ticuhir 
 localities, in which particular localities that £20 or £30 
 was doled out piecemeal to the actual perpetrators of 
 the outrage. Where did the Attorney-General find his 
 authority for that statement ? AVho was the informer 
 or who the convict that told that lying story ? — lying 
 I must call it, for the Attorney -General has not even 
 ventured to make an attempt to substantiate it. And 
 to further prove that I am not putting the case as it is 
 presented by The Times too high, let me remind your 
 Lordships of a further ingenuous statement of the 
 Attorney -General. He went on to say: "I do not 
 mean to suggest that Mr. Biggar or the others knew 
 the particular person to be outraged, or that they com- 
 mitted the outrage themselves, for thet/ had 7iot lime." 
 So that, according to the case that the Attorney-General 
 
ITS MEANS 227 
 
 Wcas instructed to present, it was only upon the principle 
 of a subdivision of labour in this criminal enterprise 
 that J\Ir. Parnell, Mr. Biggar, and Mr. Davitt had not 
 their o\yu hands stained with crime ! My Lords, at 
 page 17, tlie second day of the Commission, occur these 
 remarkable words : — 
 
 " 'J'liou^li llic leaders " [the leaders is my paraphrase] — " though 
 the leaders did not themselves go and personally plan the outrages, 
 they could not, because they had not the time, and, of course, 
 Avould not lie connected with it, but their men were doing it for 
 them, and of that system they took advantage." 
 
 And one other passage I think I must read — it is at 
 page 186 of the Commission's proceedings : — 
 
 "I thiidc it will appear" (says the Attorney-General) "that an 
 emissary of the Land League, an agent of the Land League, used to 
 get the money from the treasurer, either Mr. Biggar, or Mr. Brennan, 
 or Mr. Egan, either one of the ofHcials who might be in charge, used to 
 take down the money, £20 or £30, and, having received the money, 
 of course, from Mr. Biggar or any of the other officials who handed it, 
 used to take down £20 or £30 into the district, and then distribute 
 it locally to the men who were going to carry out the outrages." 
 
 My Lords, what a contemptible case of wretched 
 shreds and patches has been presented to your Lord- 
 ships in view of such statements as this ! Will an 
 explanation be given of them ? Will an apology be 
 made for them ? They are directed against colleagues 
 in Parliament wdiose characters are as dear to them as 
 the Attorney-General's character is to him. He, of 
 course, is acting upon instructions. Where are the 
 instructions ? Who was the witness ? What was the 
 evidence against these men ? For I take leave to say 
 that statements of this kind are not to be put forward 
 lightly, recklessly, without the closest and gravest 
 examination by any man at the bar, from the highest 
 
228 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 to the lowest, and I shall look with some curiosity 
 for the explanation of the fact of these charges l)eing 
 broadly, recklessly, made, without one single attem])t to 
 justify them. 
 The Work Now, my Lords, I come to the consideration of what 
 League' ' was tlic actual work of the League, The work of the 
 League may be shortly described under two heads as a 
 work of relief and a work of organisation. 
 
 As regards the work of organisation, it consisted, first, 
 in the creation of the central executive ; next, in the 
 creation of local branches all over the country ; next, in 
 the inspection of those branches ; arranging differences 
 between members of the branches or between neigh- 
 bouring branches. 
 
 And as regards relief, it was of two kinds. Your 
 Lordships will recollect that one of the Local Govern- 
 ment Board inspectors, whose reports I read, urged, 
 with a view to averting a fresh blight in the potatoes, 
 the necessity for the introduction of a new and 
 healthier seed. The Land League expended and dis- 
 tributed throughout the country in the poorest parts 
 (and were the first to do it) a sum of £10,000 in the 
 purchase of champion seed potatoes, which they supplied 
 to families who in their destitution had, as these reports 
 pointed out as probable, actually consumed such remain- 
 ing seed potatoes as they possessed ; and they dis- 
 tributed in relief of distress altogether a sum somewhat 
 exceeding £50,000, gathered together, in fact, as the 
 result of Mr. Parneirs appeal in America. 
 
 Their further relief - assistance took the form of 
 defending legal proceedings against tenants with a view 
 to eviction, and at a later stage, under the operation 
 of an Act, to which I shall have to refer your Lord- 
 ships presently, known as the Coercion Act of 1881, to 
 
IX ITS WORK 229 
 
 the clefeDce of persons charged with various offences, 
 and to maintaining of persons and the families of persons 
 put into prison as " suspects," as tliey were called, under 
 the ])owers of tliat Act. 
 
 In addition to this there were, of course, meetings as 
 ])nrt of tlic ngitation held over the country at various 
 ])hices by mendjcrs of r.-irliament and others, and 
 speeches made, some of them wise, some of them, I take 
 leave to say, unwise, some of them (I am glad to say a 
 <'.oin]>ai'atively small number of them, in my humble 
 judgment) condemnablc speeches. 
 
 That, my Lords, was the general work of the League. 
 Originally at its head, as its })rincipal representative in 
 l)ul)liii, was Mr. Michael Davitt, and he continued at its 
 head until he was arrested on tlie 3d February 1881. 
 He liad Ijcen absent, however, during a portion of that 
 time in America. He returned from America, I think, 
 about tlie 8th December 1880, and the first act tliat he 
 did u|)on that return, in conjunction with tlie executive 
 of the League, was, upon the 13tli December 1880, to 
 issue this memorandum of instructions to organisers and 
 oilicers of the branches of tlie Land League. I may at 
 this moment state to your Lordships that until after the 
 Compensation for Disturl)aiice Bill was rejected no 
 oi-ganiser at all liad l)cen a]»pointed througliout the 
 country. 
 
 In reference to that Bill, to which, I am afraid, I 
 have recurred too often, I would like to make one con- 
 cUiding observation. I have always thought, as I 
 tliouglit at the time it was under discussion in Parlia- 
 ment, that, so far as its practical effect was concerned, 
 it would not have a very wide application ; but its 
 real efiect would have been to have conveyed a message 
 of hope to a large class of these small struggling farmers. 
 
230 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 to have made them feel that the legishiture of the 
 kingdom was interesting itself in their concerns, and in 
 that way would have induced them to l)ear with a 
 greater degree of patience the suffering through which 
 undoubtedly they were obliged to pass. 
 
 This memorandum was in the following words : — 
 
 "MEMORANDUM OF INSTRUCTIONS 
 
 TO 
 
 ORGANISERS AND OFFICERS OF THE BRANCHES OF 
 THE LAND LEAGUE 
 
 Davitt's "The unprecedented growtli of the organisation of the League 
 
 ircu ar. -^vithin the past few months, and the consequent increase in the 
 duties and responsibilities of the executive, necessitate tlie offering 
 of some suggestions of a general character in reference to the 
 present position of the movement, Avhicli, if acted u})on, will 
 strengthen its hands in the administration of the League, and 
 powerfully aid in the speedy attainment of the objects for which it 
 was organised. In face of the efforts which are being made to 
 arrest the i)rogress of the movement, by instituting proceedings 
 against members of our body and otherwise, nothing is so essential 
 in the task of frustrating such unjust designs as to convince both 
 public opinion and our enemies that our organisation, from the 
 central executive in Dublin to the remotest branch in the country, 
 is one thoroughly united body, animated with but one resolve, and 
 working together in harmony like a piece of Avcll-adjusted machinery. 
 Convinced of the power which systematic combination alone can 
 give, the enemies of the Land League will find it an easier and 
 more profitable task to compete with it in the solution of the Land 
 Question, and in rendering service to oiu- people, than to essay the 
 impossible task of crushing it by the old time-worn weapons of State 
 prosecutions, coercion, and intimidation. Every branch should, 
 therefore, have its monthly report forwarded to the central offices 
 punctually on the first day of each month, together MJth all 
 
IX ITS U'ORK 231 
 
 subscriptions not required for the ordinary expenses of the branch. 
 Eacli member of a branch sliould pledge himself to bring a new 
 member at each meeting, until the people of the district are all 
 enrolled. In tlie formation of new branches it is important to 
 obtain intelligent men f<n' officers, care lieing taken that no man be 
 placed in position who is not stead}', reliable, and trustworthy. 
 
 "Each affiliated branch must communicate direct with the 
 central executive in I)ul)lin (or Avherever else it may be necessary 
 to carry on its labours) in all matters relating to finances, reports, 
 and organisation. County centralisation invites dangers and 
 attacks which could not so easily affect a solid, compact body under 
 the complete guidance of a central executive council with the entire 
 resources of the organisation at its control. Disjointed action must, 
 a})Ove all, l)e avoided by branches. Evidence is not wanting that 
 numbers of men have joined, and are joining the League, who give 
 but a half-hearted allegiance to its full programme. It will lie the 
 effort of the (loverimient to projjose such a measure as will be 
 calculated to satisfy the weak-kneed reformers outside and inside 
 our ranks, Avho arc willing to accept half measures, as godsends, 
 and who are likewise desirous of promoting the sway of AVhiggery 
 in Ireland. If men who denounced the programme of the League 
 six months ago, but are now numbered among its members, are 
 allowed to use a single branch of our organisation as a platform of 
 compromise with landlordism, or as a lever of disunion to weaken 
 the power and influence of this great movement, the work of the 
 enemy will have been performed, and a new lease of life be given 
 to that system which otherwise can be crushed and banished from 
 our midst. 
 
 " Organisers and officers of the League, speaking at public 
 meetings ov writing to the jiublic jness, are expected to enunciate 
 the Land League platform of no comi)romise or partnership with 
 landlordism, and to repudiate the }iroposals known as the three F's 
 now being advocated by landlord organs, in hopes of saving a 
 doomed system from destruction, and giving fixity of tenure in 
 Ireland to most of those evils which have already depopulated our 
 country, ])au})erised our people, and instigated those crimes which 
 are now being charged by their real authors upon the organisation 
 which aims at their prevention. 
 
 " In no period of the League's existence was it so absolutely Crime and 
 necessary for the tenant farmers and labourers throughout the "'^"S'^- 
 
232 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 
 
 length and l)rL'iulth of tlie country to keep a linn grip upon and 
 control over their passions and indignation at wrongs pei[)etrate(l 
 and injustice threatened than at the present hour. The evil system 
 which has so long heen the curse of their families and existence 
 is now gasping out its criminal life in face of the Avhole wcnld — 
 dethroned, discredited, and on the point of being destroyed l»y the 
 stern but passionless action of a united and indignant i)eoi)le through 
 the means of a bloodless revolution. To consummate its death 
 should be the eflbrt of every member of the League, to have the 
 civilised world bend back its thumbs and give sanction to that 
 decree against landlordism should ])e the aim and desire of every 
 man upon whom it has inflicted injuries. How is this to be eli'ected ? 
 To show the world that the just use of organised strength is to 
 remedy present evils, and not to avenge past wrongs — to convince our 
 enemies that we have at last learned how to evolve out of ourselves, 
 build up, and control a power Avhich can be directed by judgment 
 and reason in the practical amelioration of our wrongs and grievances, 
 instead of allowing it to fall a prey to that intoxication of })urpose 
 and unsystematic action which have hitherto purchased the defeat 
 of the people's cause. To effect this object demands no sacrifice 
 from any man in our ranks but that of temper and passion ; to see 
 it triumph requires no action but such as the League points out in 
 its teachings and rules. Firm and determined attitude in making 
 just demands without violence— to enfox'ce Avhat intelligent, legal, 
 and resolute combination can obtain — enunciation of just principles 
 and motives to convince where intimidation entails a conflict with 
 law — arguments and motives based upon right and common good, 
 when born of deej) and honest conviction, will be found a more 
 potent agency in furthering the cause of free land, and lu;l})ing the 
 League in winning it for the j)eo})le, than means which jar upon the 
 public mind and tend to alienate the sympathy of outside observers. 
 Threatening letters are as unnecessary as they are stupidly criminal 
 and unjustifiable ; and Ave feel assured that no member of our 
 organisation has resorted to such a method of making just demands 
 which invites the stigma of cowardice and clumsily plays into the 
 hands of the landlords. If a just right cannot fearlessly be demanded 
 by a victim of landlord power when a powerful organisation is at 
 his back to })rotect him, he deserves neither a concession from the 
 ■ landlord nor assistance from the League in obtaining it. 
 
 " In speaking of injuries inflicted upon dumb animals, we cannot 
 
IX n\S ]]'ORK ' 233 
 
 for a single instant believe either the numerous reports of these 
 monstrous outrages which the landlord organs are publishing, or 
 thnt a single man within the ranks of our organisation would be 
 guilty of piirtici[)ating in the few cases which we are sorry to say 
 have been authenticated. No injustice in the power of Irish land- 
 lordism to jierpetratc upon our people could justify in the least 
 degree the unfeeling brutality which inflicts injuries or suffering 
 upon harmless and defenceless animals, in revenge for the wrongs 
 conuuitted by their owners. AVhile dwelling upon this painful 
 sul.)ject we would point out to the officers of the various branches 
 throughout Ireland the advisability of informing the executive of 
 the Lengue of any outrage occurring in the locality, in order that 
 reliable information may be at hand to correct the vicious exaggera- 
 tion given to insignificant occurrences by the landlord organs. 
 Agents of the Associated Press throughout the country arc known 
 to have manufactured outrages near their districts in order to turn 
 them to nccount in obtaining money by feeding the criminal appetite 
 of English rciuhns ; luid it is well to renn'nd those gentlemen that 
 while the privileges of the press entitle them to pu1)lish facts and 
 make any just w fair connncnts thereon, deliberate concoction of 
 outrages will be looked upon as real outrages upon the character 
 and name of the Irish people. A fair and judicious use of the power 
 of coiid)ination against the enemies of the people, traitors to the 
 Lengue, or instruments of unjust eviction or other landlord injustice, 
 will work the requirements of our movement in the present crisis, 
 without any resort to means or methods Avhich would offer a pre- 
 text for foul play agninst the organisation or estrange the moral 
 support of })ublic o})inion outside of Ireland from a just and noble 
 cause. 
 
 " Respectfully sulimitting the foregoing suggestions, we remain 
 your obedient servants, ^^^^^^ Executive of the 
 
 Irish National Land League. 
 
 " Offices of the Land Lengue, 
 
 39 Upjter Sackvillc Street, Dublin, 
 \?,th Dccemhrr \^?,0." 
 
 That was, as yonr Lordships have henrd, published Demmcia- 
 aiid cir('id;ited in Dcccmhcr 1880. l>ut again so ^w. 
 lamciitaLly deficient have been the instructions of tlie 
 
234 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 Attorney-General that his attention has not even l)een 
 called to it. My Lords, between tliat day in December 
 and the 3d February 1881, Mr. Michael Davitt alone, 
 to say nothing of the other speakers whose utterances 
 will hereafter be referred to, attended no less than 
 25 public meetings, and at every one of those public 
 meetings, in strong, earnest language, he denounced out- 
 rages, and condemned and held up to oblocpiy their 
 perpetrators. Not one of those speeches has been read 
 in the course of the case for the prosecution. My Lords, 
 I have, and must hereafter call your attention to it, a 
 small volume of similar speeches by other members of 
 Parliament and persons taking an active part in this 
 The Times organisation, and yet in face of those facts the Attorney- 
 General was instructed to make these two statements 
 which 1 will read. At page 73 he said : — 
 
 " Upon the one side I shall put l)cforo you afiirniative eviilence 
 of the infamous speeches that were being made by many of these 
 men, sometimes by the leaders themselves, and at other times in 
 their presence. On not one single occasion do we find the slightest 
 speech, or one single expression directed to diverting the minds of 
 people from outrage — to diverting them from the acts which certainly 
 followed, and which to the knowledge of these men followed." 
 
 And again, on the next page (74), these further 
 words (the reference in each case is to the speech in 
 O'Donnell v. Walter in tlie official Blue Book) : — 
 
 " During the whole period of these years there is not, so far as I 
 know, one solitary speech amongst the thousands delivered in which 
 any one of these men deprecated the outrages which were undoubtedly 
 going on." 
 
 My Lords, before your Lordships that language has 
 been slightly, but only slightly, modified, and I find 
 this passage : — 
 
ITS WORK 235 
 
 " They " (that is, the leaders), " with scarcely an exception, never 
 denounced these outrages or took any steps to put an end to this, 
 which was, if I am correctly instructed, one of the most cruel 
 tyraiuiies that ever existed in any country in the history of the 
 world. 
 
 "Many of those whose names are included in these particulars 
 knew, and nuist have known, that sums of money were being paid, 
 not in an exceptional instance, but over a long period of time, to 
 persons who were engaged in carrying out the acts of violence and 
 crimes to which I have referred." 
 
 And nofain : — 
 
 "ti 
 
 " No single step is taken to denounce the crimes, or those guilty 
 of any of these outrages." 
 
 Again : — 
 
 "Probably not on one single occasion may the evidence which I 
 shall lay before your Lordships as it now stands have to be slightl}^ 
 qualified. I believe it will be possible to show that in one or two 
 speeches there is something like a reference to — I cannot call it a 
 condemnation of — the outrages and the crimes which have been 
 committed, but at any rate the statement is true that in the vast 
 majority of instances there is language inciting to crime, without 
 the sh'ghtest condemnation of tiie outrages Avhich followed from the 
 conduct so directed." 
 
 And on the second sittins; of this Commission : — 
 
 " WJiy is it that there is not one single speech, one single 
 attempt made by these great leaders, this great constitutional party, 
 to restrain the Land League 1 " 
 
 Your Lordships will recollect one of the earlier The Times 
 witnesses called whose name was O'Malley, a police 
 reporter. Ah^ attended, according to his account, some 
 200 meetings, principally, I think, in the west and 
 south, and his evidence, as your Lordships will find it 
 at page 4G8 of tlie C-ommission, is this, that denunciations 
 of crime nnd outrage as a rule occurred at each of these 
 
236 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 meetings by the speakers, and amongst otliers l)y tlie 
 priests who attended at those meetings. 
 
 I will not repeat, for your Lordships have been good 
 enough to give it an attentive listening, the injunctions 
 contained in those instructions to the organisers. To 
 one point only do I desire to refer, to the point which 
 insists upon the selection for the governing body of tlie 
 local brandies the men of the best position, — I am not 
 giving your Lordships the exact words but the idea — 
 the men of the best position and of the best relialjility 
 in point of character and conduct that can be oljtained 
 and selected in the neiohbourhood. I think that is im- 
 portant upon a broad consideration of the true character 
 of this com])ination, because, as a matter of fact, as your 
 Lordships ultimately, I think, had it made apparent, the 
 Land League in its branch organisation practically em- 
 l)odied, at least so far as membership was concerned, l)y 
 far the great majority of all the people in each of tlieir 
 neighbourhoods ; and in an enormous nund)cr of Land 
 League branches the effort was made, and successfully 
 made, to get the parish priest or the Catholic curate of 
 the place or both to assume the most responsible position 
 in relation to it. 
 
 My Lords, can it be for one instant suggested that 
 these men, the priests of the country, the leading- 
 men of the neighbourhood, of the farming class — 
 I do not mean magistrates and landlords, but I mean 
 of their class, of tenant farmers — that all these men 
 were engaged in a criminal conspiracy, and were adopting 
 violent and criminal means and methods for the effecting 
 of their objects ? Unless your Lordships are prepared 
 to cast that stigma and support that accusation against 
 priests and people throughout L'eland, with what show 
 of justice can it be cast upon the men who were at the 
 
IX ITS WORK 237 
 
 liead of the movement, who were attending to their 
 Parlinmentaiy duties, and to a large extent at least 
 occupied with other and different concerns ? 
 
 My Lords, the force of that consideration will liecome, 
 I think, still stronger, when I show your Lordships that 
 in the time of the worst troul)le, of the most grievous 
 crime, tJic action of the Executive Government had 
 resulted in the complete disorganisation of the machinery 
 of the Land League, in the putting in prison, not merely 
 the leaders who had the general control of its central 
 oro;anisation in Dublin, 1)ut also a laroje number of its 
 local representative men, its presidents, its secretaries, 
 and its treasurers. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, while Mr. Davitt was engaged in un- Davitt 
 doubtedly furtliering by his presence and his speech the ^^^^^ ^ ' 
 agitation, and at the same time, as I have intimated, 
 lionestly and earnestly denouncing crime, he was stopped 
 in that work on the 3d February 1881. For, being at 
 large on ticket-of-leave, his sentence not having expired, 
 he was arrested ; I think the nominal charge being that 
 he had not acted conformably to the conditions of 
 ]iis tic]':et. The real reason, I think it cannot be 
 doubted, was something different. He was released on 
 the 6th May 1882. He was re-arrested, I mention 
 it out of date, in January 1883, for a speech which he 
 made at Navan, or after a speech which he made at 
 Navan, which will l)e hereafter referred to, and was 
 finally released in June 1883. Therefore, with the 
 exception of the interval between the 6th May 1882 
 and January 1883, he was in prison from February of 
 1881 to June 1883. 
 
 My Lords, to him succeeded in the headship, if I Diiion 
 may so call it, of tlie central organisation in Dublin 
 Mr. John Dillon. He in his turn was arrested on the 
 
238 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 2d May 1881, released on the 7tli August 1881, re- 
 arrested on the 15th October 1881, and ultimately 
 released in May 1882. At this time there had passed 
 what is known as Mr. Forster's Coercion Act ; that Act 
 received the Eoyal assent in March of 1881. 
 
 To Mr. Dillon succeeded in the headship of the 
 central office in Dublin Mr. Thomas Sexton, member 
 of Parliament, and now for the second year Lord Mayor 
 of Dublin. He continued from very soon after the arrest 
 of Mr. Dillon in May 1881 up to about September 
 1881 as the head of the central organisation in Dublin. 
 In September 1881 he became ill, and while, as I am 
 instructed, still ill, he was in turn, on the 14th October 
 1881, arrested as a suspect under Mr. Forster's Act, and, 
 I think in consequence of his state of health, was 
 released on the 1st November 1881. To Mr. Sexton, 
 in the headship of the central office, succeeded Mr. Arthur 
 O'Connor, member of Parliament. Then followed other 
 arrests, which I shall in a moment call attention to, and 
 to evade arrest Mr, Arthur O'Connor left Dublin and 
 came to England. Mr. O'Connor's first act, when he 
 succeeded to Mr. Sexton, was to employ and bring 
 into the office for the purpose of keeping the accounts 
 and books of the League in order, a public accountant 
 or a gentleman from the office of a public accountant 
 in Dublin. That gentleman was Mr. Phillips, who, 
 according to the evidence of Mr. Soames, availed 
 himself of his position of trust in the Land League 
 to carry away from the office of his employers a number 
 of documents, some of which have been produced ; 
 the only one of any consequence that I can recall, 
 and I think the ftict is so, being a letter, which your 
 Lordships may remember, from one Timothy Horan, 
 who is since dead, and who was at the time secretary' 
 
THE ARRESTS, iSSi 239 
 
 of the Castleislaiid brancli of the Land League. To 
 tliat letter, and to tlic incidents to which it refers, I will 
 later recur. 
 
 I wish, my Lords, to explain fully the position of this 
 matter. I have followed out this succession of persons 
 down to Mr. Arthur O'Connor, who was the last person 
 who had anything to do with the conduct of the business 
 of the League at the central office in Dublin, and the 
 rest of the direction, su(di as it was, was in Paris during 
 the action of the Land League, because, seeing that the 
 Coercion Act was then pending and that the arrest of 
 JMr. Davitt had pretty well shown what the intention of 
 the executive at that time was, Mr. Egan, the treasurer, 
 went to Paris in February of 1881 and remained in 
 Paris, and that fact your Lordshi})s will find not an 
 unim])ortant consideration in relation to the evidence, 
 amongst others of Delaney. He remained in Paris 
 until December 1882. I am not sure whether he did 
 not visit Dublin on one or two occasions in the interval. 
 I do not wish to express myself cjuite positively about 
 it. 1 know that he did come to this country ; whether 
 he went to Ireland I am not sure, I rather think he 
 did; but practically from February 1881 to December 
 of 1882 he w^as resident in Paris. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I wish to show what was done with other 
 the other officers of the League, and the men who were 
 connected with the League. Boyton was arrested as a 
 suR])Cct on the 8th March 1881, released on the 30th 
 Noveml)er 1881. Sheridan was arrested on the 15th 
 March 1881, as a suspect, released on the IStli September 
 1881. j\lr. Harris was arrested on the 16th Aprd 1881, 
 released on the 3d February 1882. I have already 
 spoken of Mr. Dillon's arrest in May of 1881, and his 
 release in August of 1881. He was again arrested 
 
240 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 when tliere was a general arrest of the leaders, as T 
 will presently tell your Lordships, on the 15th October 
 
 1881, and released, as I have already mentioned, in 
 May of 1882. Thomas Brennan was arrested on the 
 23d May 1881, and released on the IGth June 1882. 
 
 Your Lordships will find these dates very important, 
 especially in reference to Brennan (they are also im- 
 portant as regards some others), having regard to the 
 evidence of at least one witness, suggesting complicity on 
 the part of Brennan in the Invincible Conspiracy. He 
 was in custody from the 23d May 1881 to the IGth June 
 
 1882. Then Mr. Parnell was arrested on the 13th 
 October 1881, released on the 2d May 1882. Mr. 
 O'Kelly was arrested on 15th October 1881, released 2d 
 May 1882. I have already given your LordshijDS the 
 date of Mr. Sexton's arrest. I will repeat them again in 
 this connection, if your Lordships wish. ]\lr. Sexton was 
 arrested on the 14th October 1881, released on the 13tli 
 November 1881. Mr. William O'Brien was arrested on 
 the 15th October 1881, released in ]\Iay 1882. Dr. 
 Kenny, member of Parliament, was arrested on the 24th 
 October 1881 (all as suspects), released on the 8th 
 February 1882. 
 
 Immediately following upon these arrests the Land 
 League was suppressed by proclamation of the executive, 
 and before, during, and after the period covered by the 
 arrests of the principal members of the League, whose 
 names I have given, there were going on all over the 
 country, the arrests of a number of persons, a large 
 proportion of whom were in official connection with 
 local branches of the Leao-ue. 
 
 I need not, I think, labour the point. It is obvious 
 that, when that state of things was arrived at, when 
 the responsibility was taken away from the leaders of 
 
THE ARRESTS, iSSi 241 
 
 the movement centrally and locally, when members 
 capable of directing, governing, and controlling were 
 in this way removed, I think your Lordships would 
 naturally expect there would follow what did follow, 
 namely, the disorganisation of the whole of the Land 
 League movement nil over the country ; and your 
 .[jordslii[)S would also expect thnt we, in such a position 
 as that, would find it practically impossible to produce 
 the records, either books, correspondence, or accounts 
 with the same exactness and the same completeness as 
 your Lordships would expect the books, accounts, and 
 correspondence of a merchant to be produced ; or, 
 j)erhaps, for this purpose a better example, as your 
 Lordships would expect, and would be justified in ex- 
 pe(;ti]ig, in the case of the National League, which 
 dates from October of 1882, and I believe I am justified 
 in saying, that we have in all respects as to its action, 
 its correspondence, its machinery, its funds, and its 
 accounts, full and complete information to be placed at 
 your Lordships' disposal. 
 
 As regards the books of the League, some, I think, 
 ibund their way to Paris, which of them I do not exactly 
 know. 1 liave never seen them. Some found their way 
 through the instrumentality of Mr. Arthur O'Connor, 
 and, I think, Mr. Henry Campbell, to Liverpool, and 
 from Liverpool to London, into the hands, I am not 
 sure of the gentleman's name, but 1 think of Mr. Molony, 
 and Dr. Kenny, in the ailidavib which he made for the 
 ])urpose of discovery, has informed your Lordships, and, 
 of course, informed those who instruct The Times, of 
 this fact. I myself have not seen such books as Mr. 
 Molony has. The Times, I understand, and I presume 
 upon the information that Dr. Kenny in his affidavit of 
 discovery gave them, sub2)ccnacd Mr. Molony to produce 
 
 R 
 
Act. 
 
 242 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 these books. Tliey have not thought it apparently useful 
 to produce them ; at all events, they have not pro- 
 duced them. 
 
 Now, my Lords, under what authority was all this 
 done ? It was done under the authority of the Act 
 passed in March of 1881, which I have descril)ed by 
 Foister's the name of Mr. Forster's Coercion Act, as it was known. 
 I do not think there is any one, on any side of politics, 
 who would at the present day justify that Act. I will 
 tell your Lordships what it was. It was an Act which 
 authorised the executive, on their being satisfied that 
 any one was " reasonably suspected " of criminal action, 
 to take him into custody, to imprison him for an in- 
 definite time without any opportunity contemplated or 
 machinery provided for the person so alleged to be 
 suspected, so seized, and so held in custody, being ever 
 brought to any judicial tribunal for trial. An extreme 
 measure, I need not say an unconstitutional measure, 
 but it was justified by Mr. Forster with perfect honesty 
 of purpose, I doubt not ; it was justified by him upon 
 the information given him by the executive — when I 
 say by the executive, I mean by police agents and by 
 inspectors and magistrates throughout the country ; a 
 great proportion, I beg your Lordships to reccjllect, of 
 this class being themselves landlords, against whom 
 this land agitation was unquestionably directed — and 
 justified by Mr. Forster from the official information 
 he in this way received, on the ground that this was in 
 truth no national movement — that it was the work, to 
 use an expression which he more than once used in the 
 House of Commons in forcing it upon that House — the 
 work of a few village rulHans. His case in the House 
 of Commons was : — Give me authority to put these 
 village ruffians into gaol and to keep them there until 
 
THE ARRESTS, iSSi 243 
 
 the country quiets clown ; the country will quiet down, 
 and thereby the peace of the community will be 
 secured. 
 
 My Lords, it is true to say, right to say, that I do 
 not doubt that, unconstitutional as this measure was, 
 indefensible as I think everybody now admits it to be, 
 that there were persons seized and arrested under it 
 who may have been, and probably were, parties to 
 criminal misconduct, but the effect of this mode of 
 treating them w^as not to allay but to increase the 
 causes of disturbance. The effect of each one of these 
 persons being arrested, not brought face to face with his 
 accusers, put into prison almost by lettre de cachet, was 
 to make that man a hero in the eyes of his friends, his 
 neighbours amongst whom he lived — to make his arrest 
 a fresh cause of local disturbance — nay, it had even a 
 worse effect than that, for it had the effect of making 
 men — many of them upon their own merits and upon 
 their own conduct, probably not entitled to public 
 sympathy at all — martyrs in the eyes of their neigh- 
 liours and of the public, and to such an extent did 
 that mistaken policy prevail that the title of " ex- 
 suspect " came absolutely to be used as a title of 
 honour. I have myself seen, years after the release of 
 these men from prison, letters in which they signed 
 themselves " ex-suspect," as if it was a title of dignity. 
 
 Well, my Lords, these men were described as village 
 ruffians, and the description may have been true as to a 
 portion of them, yet many a one, I take leave to say, 
 without poetical exaggeration might be described as a 
 
 " Village Hampden, who with dauntless breast 
 The little tyrant of his fields withstood." 
 
 But if that was the effect upon the public mind and on 
 
244 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 the public peace in the case of the class to whom I 
 have referred, how much more intense was the feeling 
 when the people of Ireland found their trusted leaders, 
 the men who were battling, as they believed, for 
 their rights, whose only offence was that they had 
 assumed their cause and made it their own, that these 
 men were thrust into prison under like conditions, no 
 accuser whom they could meet, no jury or other 
 tribunal to whom they could appeal ? The result was 
 exactly what one would have anticipated : disorganisa- 
 tion of the Land League, the aljsence of control by 
 its oflicers of its movements, widespread and increasing- 
 discontent and disturbance — ay, and increased and 
 increasing crime ; for your Lordships will find that over 
 the whole of the period into which you are inquiring 
 the worst period of crime was during the operation 
 of that Coercion Act and the imprisonment of the Land 
 League leaders. The worst period of crime was the 
 period which immediately followed the imprisonment of 
 its leaders. 
 
 I know it may be suggested, and I desire to leave 
 
 no suggestion of that kind untouched, that there was 
 
 another cause in operation, namely, the issue of the 
 
 'NoReut "No Rent Manifesto." T do not deny that it is quite 
 
 Mani 
 
 fcato!" possil)le fairly and reasonably to suggest that that also 
 may have had a disturl)ing effect upon the peace of the 
 country, but \ say it could have luul no ellect, upon the 
 peace of the country, anything like proportionate to the 
 effect consequent upon the breaking up of that control- 
 ling power of the organisation which followed on the im- 
 prisonment of the local, as well as of the central, leaders 
 of the organisation. 
 
 As regards that " No Eent Manifesto," I do not justify 
 the issue of it. I doul)t whether Mr. Parnell would 
 
''NO RENT MANIFESTO'' 245 
 
 justify it ; if he did, he would say this, that it was an 
 unconstitutional blow in return for an unconstitutional 
 l)low. He would say, and I think justly say, it did 
 something, or might have done something, to bring 
 the executive and the landlords, whose interests by 
 these proceedings they were supposed — erroneously 
 supposed — to be serving, more speedily to the 
 sense and belief that the peace of the country was 
 not to be secured, nor the settlement of the Land 
 (Question to 1)e arrived at, by the imprisonment of the 
 Irish leaders. But as regards any actual operation in 
 the withliolding of tlie payment of rents, I boldly 
 [)rofess this opinion, that, looking to the position of the 
 ordinary Irish tenant, to the fact that he has no resource 
 to loolc to Ijut continued occupation in his holding, I 
 do not believe that any organisation, however strong, or 
 any external inducement, liowever forcibly put, will pre- 
 vent that man from paying the rent, even the unjust 
 rent, which he owes by the terms of his contract, pro- 
 vided he has tlie means to do it, if the alternative is 
 tliat he will lose for himself and his family and his 
 cliihlren the protection of his house and home. I do 
 not mean to say there may not be isolated cases to 
 which my general observation would not apply, but I 
 believe, speaking generally, that the Irish tenants have 
 in the past and even in the present times strained every 
 effort to keep their holdings, however great the pinch 
 and the stress of penury which has been put u})on them. 
 My Lords, as a matter of fact, the " No Ilent 
 Manifesto" was circulated only for a limited period, 
 and your Lordships may recall the statement, which 
 I believe was strictly accurate, of Captain O'Shea, who, 
 referring to his interview in Kilmainliam, in, I think, 
 about the month of April 18S2, said he was then told 
 
246 
 
 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE 
 
 by Mr. Parnell that the "No Rent Manifesto" had 
 been for months — I think that was Captain O'Shea's 
 expression — had been for months a dead letter. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I should like in this connection to 
 show your Lordships how the question stands. My 
 learned friend Mr. Asquith, and my other learned col- 
 leagues (whose services I cannot sutticiently acknow- 
 ledge), have helped me to put before your Lordships, in 
 what I think is a succinct and clear form, two as])ccts 
 of the figures of crime of 1880, 1881, and 1882. Your 
 Lordships will recollect that the Land League was sup- 
 pressed in October 1881. The following table shows 
 that from October 1881 to April 1882, making inclusive 
 seven months, crimes of all kinds of an agrarian nature 
 amounted to 3531, or an average for each of these seven 
 months of 504 in each month. 
 
 Agrarian 
 Crime. 
 
 "Agrarian Crime 
 
 "1880-81-82 
 
 
 1880. 
 
 1881. 
 
 1882. 
 
 January 
 
 
 448 
 
 495 
 
 February 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 170 
 
 410 
 
 March . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 151 
 
 542 
 
 April 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 308 
 
 465 
 
 May 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 351 
 
 401 
 
 June 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 332 
 
 284 
 
 July . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 271 
 
 231 
 
 August . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 373 
 
 176 
 
 September 
 
 
 
 
 168 
 
 416 
 
 139 
 
 October . 
 
 
 
 
 269 
 
 511 
 
 112 
 
 November 
 
 
 
 
 561 
 
 534 
 
 93 
 
 December 
 ' Total 
 
 
 
 
 866 
 
 574 
 
 85 
 
 1864 
 
 4439 
 
 3433 
 
 "From October 1881 to April 1882 (inclusive, seven months) 
 = 3531, or an average of 504 per month, which is higher than 
 during any other corresponding period." 
 
AGRARIAN CRIME 247 
 
 I present also, my Lords, another view of these 
 figiuTS as to crime over this period. This view is 
 merely conversant with the crime of murder. Your 
 Lordships will recollect that the Attorney - General 
 examined the statistics, taking the period thus — the 
 statement will be found at page 198 of his opening. 
 He took the periods 1877-79, which would be three 
 years; 1880-82, three years; 1883-84; and the years 
 1885-87, and he worked out this result: 1877-79, 
 before the Land League, 20 murders; 1880-82, during 
 the Land League, 50 murders; 1883-84, one murder; 
 1885-87, 19 murders. 
 
 My Lords, I point out first of all that, in its full force 
 and intensity the effect of the disastrous year — the cul- 
 minating disastrous year of 1879 — did not begin to be 
 felt until 1880-81. Ikit still more, that the disturbing 
 cause, tlic thing wliicli is the most widely connected 
 with disturbance, with crime, and with outrage, namely, 
 the increase of landlord activity in ejectments, especi- 
 ally when they have ripened into evictions, that 
 this was in greater force, according to the figures 
 which 1 yesterday gave your Lordships, in the years 
 1881-82. 
 
 I have another and contrasted table for this purpose, 
 and for the purpose of this contrast I am dividing the 
 periods differently. I am taking the same figures, 
 adopting the same figures of murders which the 
 Attorney-General has given, and what is the result ? I 
 have only troubled you wdth the Attorney -General's 
 figures as to murders. He referred to others also, and 
 I shall in this contrasted statement deal with them all. 
 Take the two years for 1880-81. The average of crime, 
 murders for those two years was 12^. The total in 
 1882 alone, when the Land League was a suppressed 
 
248 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 body, was 26. Taking "firings at tlie person," the 
 average of the two years 1880-81 was 45|. For 1882 
 alone, when tlie Land League was suppressed, 58. The 
 average for the two years 1880-81 of "incendiary fires," 
 and so forth, 283. The total for the year 1882 alone, 
 was 281. "Cattle outrages," the average for the two 
 years 1880-81, 128. Li 1882 alone, 144. " Threatening 
 letters," average for the two years 1880-81, 1764. Total 
 in 1882 alone, 2009. "Firing into dwelling-houses," 
 the average for the two years 1880-81, was 105. The 
 total in 1882 alone, 117. In other words, the average 
 for the two years 1880-81, of all the oftences together, 
 is 2338 as against 2635 in 1882 alone. 
 
 Then, my Lords, the Attorney-General went on to 
 refer to the outrages over the later period, and he con- 
 nected their diminution with one cause, the operation 
 and force of the Crimes Act. I attribute them to 
 another and a difi'ercnt cause, I quite agree that the 
 stringency of criminal law may restrain, but only for a 
 brief period, the appearance of crime. It does not alter 
 the temper of the people. It does not bring them 
 in closer sympathy with law" ; it does not increase their 
 resj^ect for the law. You may drive for a time the 
 appearance of crime beneath the surfoce, but it is the most 
 you can accomplish. There was in operation, in those 
 later years, that which the Land League had desired 
 should be in operation long before ■ — the history of 
 which I will presently give you — the operation of a 
 Land Act, that of 1881, the first great charter of freedom 
 for the Irish tenant farmer. And there was in operation 
 an Arrears Act, which, if the wise counsel — for wise it 
 proved to be — of the Irish members had been followed, 
 would have been passed long before, and would have 
 made the operation of the Land Act much more wide- 
 
SUPPRESSED 249 
 
 spread and much speedier in its tranquillising effect 
 upon the country. 
 
 If I have succeeded in conveying my method of 
 proceeding to your Lordships, you will understand that 
 I am not at this stage dealing with the evidence, in any 
 kind of detail, relating to particular crimes. I propose 
 to do that a little later. I wish to complete the 
 nai-rativc, the whole story, only referring incidentally 
 to matters which are necessary to make my narrative 
 clear, preserving — as far as in such a story it is possible 
 to j^reserve — the order of time. 
 
 My Lords, I would, however, in passing, ask leave Raids and 
 to point out, as your Lordships recollect, the exceptional 
 ndvantages which The Times have had — I speak not 
 merely of the ability of their counsel and of their 
 solicitor, but of the special advantages to which I, early 
 in my observations, referred in this matter. I am not 
 complaining, but merely referring to the fact, that they 
 have had at their disposition in the establishment of the 
 charges which they have advanced, practically all the 
 means of knowledge which the executive have had. 
 When your Lordships recollect that raid after raid, 
 search after search, has been made with the view of 
 discovering in the possession of persons, connected 
 oflicially with the Land League, incriminatory documents 
 —raids which even extended to the central oflicc itself 
 in I)ul)lin — when you recollect that, I do ask your 
 Ijordships is it not an extraordinary ffict, not that 
 they have oljtained so much, but that in the case 
 of an organisation so widely spread, with so many 
 Ijranches, that they have been able to find, and have 
 succeeded in producing so little that is in any way of 
 an incriminatory or damnatory character ? I l)eg leave 
 to say — I believe I have the assent of my friends — I do 
 
2SO THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 not desire to overstate my case, but I believe I am 
 correct in saying that the result of all the searches, 
 to which I shall in a moment call your Lordships' 
 attention, all information supplied Ijy the police, 
 and by their reports to their superiors, was one docu- 
 ment, and one document only. The letter of the dead 
 man, Timothy Horan, the secretary of the Castleisland 
 branch of the Land League, is the only one which affords 
 even a shadow of a shade of foundation for the reckless 
 statement — I do not mean reckless as far as the 
 Attorney-General is concerned, but reckless as regards 
 those who instruct him — that the ordinary machinery, 
 the normal aud regular machinery of this popular organ- 
 isation was employed in attempts at outrage. 
 
 What were these searches? They extend from 1882 
 down to,' I think, the latest in 1884. 1 have already 
 referred to the assistance which, in betrayal of his con- 
 fidential employment, Mr. Phillips, the accountant, 
 appears to have rendered. Lie appears to have been 
 able to secure that one document, and that one document 
 only, to which I have referred. Now what were those 
 searches ? And when I point attention to those searches, 
 I wish your Lordships to understand that if we knew the 
 full extent and number of them, it would strengthen my 
 observations a great deal more. I am dealing with only 
 those that have appeared in the course of this case, and 
 that have incidentally come out, or directly come out in 
 the course of the evidence for the prosecution. It may 
 be that the explanation suggested to me is the right one, 
 that these have been brought forward because, if they 
 can be so called, they were the only ones that were 
 fruitful, that the fruitless ones have not been mentioned 
 or been kept in the background. 
 
 M'Carthy, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, page 
 
SUPPRESSED 251 
 
 886, in August 1884 searched the house of John Mahon, 
 tren surer of the Land League of the Farranfore branch, 
 because, says M'Carthy, he was suspected. 
 
 O'Brien, of the Royal Irish Constabuhiry at page 
 1393 — I am reading this to your Lordship not in 
 the order of date, but in the order in which they 
 appear in the evidence of the proceedings — on the 
 22d November 1884 searched the house of Steele, a 
 correspondent of Laliive, secretary of the Ahadda 
 l)iancli of the League, and he produced two letters 
 signed by Lahive, secretary of the branch, and that 
 search was apparently made for the purpose of seeing 
 whether he could not get evidence to prosecute this 
 secretary, 
 
 Royse, of the Royal Irisli Constabulary, page 1442, 
 on the nth January 1883 searched Mahony's house 
 at J)a]lydehob, and a large nundier of documents were 
 produced, not one of which is worth my making even a 
 passing comment upon. 
 
 Mr. M'Ardle, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, on the 
 10th of August 1882 searched the house of Michael 
 CuUcn, of Foxford, County Mayo, secretary of the Foxford 
 branch, and found some letters with reference to the 
 defence of prisoners, and instructions as to the procedure 
 in cases of eviction, and an interesting historical docu- 
 ment, the amended constitution of the I. R. B. 
 
 On the same date, tlie same gentleman, evidence 
 page 2125, searched the house of Martin Sheridan, of 
 Ballagh, brother of P. J. Sheridan, in order to get docu- 
 ments to incriminate that person. 
 
 Roger, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, page 2176, 
 on the 6th of April 1883 searched the house of Mrs. 
 J\la,ry O'Connor at Athlone, the secretary of the Ladies 
 Laud Leacrue. I will not even stop to criticise those 
 
252 THE IRISH NATIONAL LAND LEAGUE ix 
 
 letters, for they have nothing in them worthy of 
 notice. 
 
 Wilkinson, of the English police, page 2359, searched 
 the house of John Walsh at Rochdale in Feljruary 1883, 
 and produced a number of documents, the relevancy of 
 which I protested against at the time, and complained 
 that no evidence was shown connecting them with any 
 time over which your Lordships' Commission was ex- 
 tending or inquiring into. I did not k'now what tlie 
 documents were, hut I demanded, I respectfully sub- 
 mitted, their relevancy shoidd be shown. They were 
 all put in — I do not complain of it — a number of docu- 
 ments relating to the Fenian Brotherhood — an imposing 
 array of statements about stands of arms and what not 
 — not one scintilla of evidence to connect them with 
 anything except a remote period. If I am wrong I 
 should be very glad at any moment to be set right in 
 relation to it. 
 
 Coulson, at page 2089, on the 12th of November 
 1881, searched the house of Tobin at Bradford. 
 
 James Kent, of the Irish constabulary (page 2843) in 
 August 1882 searched the house of Edward O'Connor, 
 secretary of the Ballimo branch of the Land League 
 in Galway. 
 
 Then at pages 1926, 1052, and 2227, we have a long 
 account of documents seized at Mr, Matthew Harris's 
 house. I leave my learned friend Mr. Lockwood here- 
 after to deal with those documents. I Manced at 
 some at the time. There was a great mass of them. 
 It showed that Mr. Matthew Harris was revolvino- 
 apparently at one time in his mind some very com- 
 prehensive schemes for national, as well as for land 
 reform, and apparently a not very inconsiderable part 
 of these notes were speculative or political inquiries 
 
SUPPRESSED 253 
 
 wliicli i\Ir. Matthew Ilarris was in his leisure moments 
 indulging in and committing to writing. But as 
 regards those documents, as far as I saw them, 
 there was not one which could throw the least 
 light upon any question involved in this case. The 
 story of the way in wliich those documents were 
 obtained, again points to the means of complete infor- 
 mation that is at the disposition of the prosecution, 
 l)ecausc what appears to have occurred was this, that 
 tlie ]iolice — upon what justification I know not, for 
 w(^ have not heen tohl by what legal right — entered 
 the house of Mr. ]\Iatthew Ilarris, possessed themselves 
 of his documents, took copies of his documents, and 
 then replaced in his house the originals. The Attorney- 
 General having in his possession the copies, called u})on 
 Mr. J\Iattliew Harris to produce the originals, and Mr. 
 JMatthew Ilarris said : " By all means," or through his 
 counsel said : " Read your copies." 
 
 My Lords, apparently the Irish police are not very 
 particular to ascertain the precise legal grounds upon 
 wliich some of their proceedings are based, for we have 
 had various little indications of acts, which I think I 
 might call extra- legal, wliich they performed in these 
 seizures. There was Mr. Kelly, who seized copies of the 
 Irish World, authorised liy no law that I am aware of, 
 but, \o use his own phrase, acting as a policeman; and 
 Mr. Harvey, also of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who 
 did tlie same, and seized a number of jiarcels that 
 arrived, and when called upon for his justification, 
 said it was because Mr. Newall, the district inspector, 
 tohl liim to do it. These are small incidents, I admit, 
 my Lords, Ijut they are incidents, nevertheless, showing 
 the mode in which the law is administered, and the rather 
 high-handed way in which tliesc people are dealt with. 
 
X. 
 
 HISTORY OF LAND ACT, 1881 
 
 Land Act, Now, my Lords, I enter on a more important su])ject. 
 
 ^^ ^' 1 come to the liistory of the Land Act — the Land 
 Act of 1881 ; an Act that, if it had been passed fifty 
 years ago, or at the time of the Devon Commission, 
 would have undoubtedly changed the social condition of 
 the Irish people in a remarkable degree. The fault of 
 legislation in regard to that country has been that it 
 has come too late ; tliat it has come only after pressure ; 
 that often it has come after exceptional pressure, and 
 under circumstances which undoubtedly weaken its 
 efi'ect, and deprive it of all its grace. My Lords, that 
 is true of this Act of 1881. I well remember the 
 opening session of that Parliament in wliich, in the 
 Queen's Speech, this Land Act was referred to, and the 
 Prime Minister's speech referring to the subject ; and I 
 convey, I think, correctly — and it is important I 
 should — the impression, formed by most minds anxious 
 upon the subject, when I say that the Prime Minister 
 of that day {I mean Mr. Gladstone), in his original 
 reference to great measures relating to L^eland, namely, 
 the Coercion Act and the Land Bill, foreshadowed in 
 his speech a strong Coercion Act and a weak Land Bill ; 
 nor do I blame the Prime Minister. He had appointed 
 a commission, one of the many commissions to which 
 
X HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iS8i 255 
 
 your Lordships have had reference made, he had 
 appointed a commission to examine and report upon 
 this subject. He was sincerely anxious to deal with it, 
 and to deal witli it, I doubt not, thoroughly ; but he 
 had a difhcult task ; he had enormous class interests 
 opposing him both in the House of Commons and in 
 another place. 
 
 What had been the attempts made on previous Previous 
 occasions by the Irish party who have been held up to ^^L^-g'fa- 
 reprobation as })ersonally interested, not in helping, but *^°"- 
 in delaying just legislation, with tlie view to keep up 
 the spirit of discontent in the country ? I will trouble 
 you with only ten years of what I may call rejected 
 Land Bills, every one of them, with hardly an exception, 
 brought in by Lisli members. \\\ 1871 a bill was intro- 
 duced by Serjeant Sherlock; in 1872 by Mr. Butt. In 
 tlie same year another for the amendment of the Land 
 Act of 1870 by Mr. Butt, In the same year another on 
 the same subject by Mr. Heron, then a member returned 
 by an Irisli constituency. In 1874 another by Mr. Butt. 
 Another by Sir John Gray. Another as regards the 
 Ulster Tenant Right by Mr. Butt. Another as regards 
 the Land Purchase Extension by The O'Donoghue. In 
 1875 one by Mr. Smyth, one by Mr. Crawford, son of Mr. 
 Sharman Crawford, whose nnine is associated with con- 
 tinued eilbrt extending over a scries of years to deal 
 with this question. In 187G one again by Mr. Craw- 
 ford, one by Mr. ]\Iulhollaud, a Conservative member for 
 Ireland, one by Mr. Butt. In 1877 another attempt 
 by i\Ir. Butt, another attempt by Mr. Crawford. In 
 1878 an attempt by Lord Arthur Hill, an attempt 
 by j\lr. Macartney, an attempt Ijy Mr. John Martin, 
 and an attempt by Mr. Moore. In 1879 again by Mr. 
 Macartney, and again by Lord Arthur Hill. Again 
 
2S6 HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSr 
 
 by Mr. Herbert, in addition to one by Mr. Taylor and 
 Mr. Downing. In 1880 again by Mr. Taylor, again by 
 Mr. Macartney, again by Mr. Litton — not again — that 
 is his first attempt ; finally, Mr. O'Connor Power, and 
 the Compensation for Disturbance Bill afterwards adopted 
 by Mr. Foster in the year 1880. 
 
 My Lords, that is one decade, and one decade only, 
 of attempts to deal with this Land Question, every one of 
 which failed to receive even a second reading in the 
 House of Commons. Why ? Not because the justice 
 of the case, the needs of dealing with the case, were one 
 whit less in those years than in 1881, but because what I 
 yesterday called the vis inertiw in the public mind and 
 in the mind of Parliament had not been overcome, had 
 not been arrested, had not its attention drawn to the 
 urgency of the case. 
 
 My Lords, in considering the Act of 1881 it is 
 necessary that I should remind you of the Commission 
 which preceded it. I told your Lordships yesterday 
 that one peculiarity of these Commissions, of which be- 
 yond doubt there has been a sutticient crop, was, that 
 there was not on one of them, until a Commission as 
 late as the year 1886-87, so far as I know, a single 
 tenant farmer. That is to say, not a single tenant 
 farmer was one of these Commissioners, although the 
 object was mainly to inquire into the condition of 
 that very class. I do not mean to say all the Com- 
 missioners were not in every case honoural)le men and 
 men of position ; but they were men whose class int(;rests, 
 to a great extent and generally speaking, conflicted with 
 remedial legislation in the direction in which the people 
 of Ireland required it. This Commission was addressed 
 to Lord Bessborough, a landlord, Init unquestionably a 
 landlord of the best class in Ireland, as I understand his 
 
X HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi 257 
 
 reputation ; to Baron Dowse, to the O'Conor Don (also a 
 landlord), to Arthur M'lMorrough Kavanagh, a landlord 
 of landlords, and to ]\Ir. William Shaw, who may be said 
 to have represented the Irish section of members of 
 Parliament at that time. 
 
 My Lords, I am very loth to trouble your Lordships 
 with long passages from this report, but I think it is 
 necessary to make it clear (I have already tried to do so 
 by comments of my own) why the Act of 1870, passed 
 with the best intentions, was an utter failure. I will 
 hand it in, not to have it put on the note, but your 
 Lordships may desire to make reference to it, and I will 
 only refer to one or two matters. Your Lordships will 
 recollect that in the Devon Commission Lord Devon 
 practically warned L'isli landlords that the custom and 
 claims of right based upon the fact that the tenants did 
 all the improvements, and built the houses, and main- 
 tained them, and so forth, would, if unchecked, grow into 
 a legal custom, which might greatly diminish the pro- 
 prietary interests and rights of the landlords. The 
 Commissioners in their report, which I have before me 
 (1 mean the report of the Bessborough Commission in Bess- 
 1881), say this:- ' ST" 
 
 mission, 
 
 1881 
 " It is probable that the warning given by Lord Devon had a 
 
 considerable effect in causing efforts to be made, far more syste- 
 matically than before, to repress the tendency of the claims of 
 tenants to l)ecome established in the form of local customs. 
 Another cause which has operated in the same direction has been 
 the extensive transfer, under the action of the Encumbered Estates 
 Court and of tlic tribunals which have taken its place, ever since 
 the famine of 1840, of ancient properties previously managed in a 
 more or less patriarclial fashion, to .new owners. Most of the pur- 
 chasers were ignorant of the traditions of the soil ; many of them 
 were destitute of sympathy for the historical condition of things. 
 Some purchased land merely as an investment for capital, and with 
 
258 HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi x 
 
 tlie purpose — a legitimate one, so far as their knowledge extended 
 — of making all the money they could out of the tenants by treat- 
 ing with them on a purely commercial footing. A senu-authorita- 
 tive encouragement was given to this view of their bargains by the 
 note which it was customary to insert in advertisements of sales 
 under the court: 'The rental is capable of considerable increase on 
 the falling in of leases.' This hint has often l)een acted on, and rents 
 greatly above the old level — in some cases probal>ly above the full 
 commercial value — have been demanded and enforced, with thenatiu'al 
 result, in a few years' time, of utterly impoverisliing the tenants." 
 
 So that your Lordships see I was understating the 
 case yesterday when I pointed merely to the neglect, for 
 a quarter of a century after the report of the Devon 
 Commission, to deal by Act of Parliament with this 
 question. For, as here stated, the warning which the 
 Devon Commission gave, and which pointed to the need 
 for an equital)le adjustment of the relations between the 
 two classes had been acted upon, as these Commissioners 
 say, " far more systematically than l)efore to repress the 
 tendency of the claims of the tenants." 
 
 Then, my I^ords, they refer to the Act of 1800, 
 which is not an important Act in itself, Ijut rather a 
 retrograde Act, the Act which I yesterday called ]\lr. 
 Deasy's Act. Mr. Cardwell (Lord C^ardwell) and Mr. 
 Deasy, in the House of Commons, were responsil)le for 
 it. It is known in L^eland as Deasy's Act. That Act is 
 referred to by the Commissioners thus : — 
 
 " This enactment has produced little or no effect. It may be 
 said to have given utterance to the wishes of the Legislature that 
 the traditional rights of tenants should cease to exist rather than 
 to have seriously affected the conditions of their existence." 
 
 Then they proceed to consider the Act of 1870. 
 They point out the respects in which it has failed, and I 
 am afraid I must trouble your Lordships with two more 
 passages from their report. 
 
X HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi 259 
 
 " The full bearing of these observations will not be appreciated 
 unless it bo remembered that, in nearly all cases of dispute between 
 tenant and landlord, Avhat the aggrieved tenant wants is, not to be 
 compensated for the loss of his farm, but to be continued in its 
 occupancy at a fair rent. This, as the law now stands, he cainiot 
 have ; and in order to raise a question before the court he is forced 
 to begin by a surrender of the oidy thing for which he really cares. 
 The jihiintiir in a land claim, if he fails to prove his case, is turned 
 out without the compensation that he claimed ; but, if he proves it, 
 he is turned out all the same. Even the chance that he might, by 
 consent of the landlord, be allowed to continue in possession at the 
 higher rent, the demand of which in many cases has been the sole 
 cause of the suit, and his refusal to pay which has led to the 
 service of the notice to quit ujion him, is lessened by the bitterness 
 naturall}' engendered in a contest at law between himself and his 
 landlord. The Act was intended to confer security upon tenants, 
 and has to some extent succeeded in so doing ; but it has in this 
 respect introduced a new clement of insecurity. It has converted 
 ordinary dis])utes over the amount of rent, and over a tenant's 
 dealings witli his holding, into one-sided wagers of battle, where the 
 prize at stake is in all cases first adjudged to the landlord, and the 
 tenant, if successful, is ol)liged to put up with a substitute. Tn a 
 word, once the tenant comes into court, all the law can give him is 
 compensation in mone3^ The \Q,vy fact of his making a claim at 
 all j)resu])[)oses that he is to leave the land. It is obvious that a 
 statute of this descri})tion, the utmost scope of which is to give 
 comjiensation for the loss of a valuable interest, but no right to be 
 ])rotected in its enjoyment, or to have it restored when it has been 
 taken away, fails to aiford protection, on the usual lines, to the 
 tenant's interest in his holding, if that interest be considered as a 
 genuine proprietary right ; and at the same time it is hard to see 
 on what grounds such legislation is to l)e justified, if the existence 
 of any proprietary right in the tenant is denied. However useful 
 as a temporary measure at a transitional period, it a})pears to us 
 that the Land Act contained in itself the seeds of failure as a per- 
 manent settlement. As such, now that it has been fairly tried, it 
 is impossible to resist the conclusion that it has failed to give satis- 
 faction to either party." 
 
 My Lords, those words of wuniing luad been uttered 
 
26o HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi 
 
 by the representative Irish members when that Land 
 Act of 1870 was in discussion in the House of Commons, 
 and had been disregarded. 
 
 The report then proceeds to point out an additional 
 grievance and difficulty, that under that Act the tenant's 
 interest was gradually eaten up by increases of rent ; 
 and further, that no scheme will be effective which does 
 not prevent this ; which does not establish a tribunal 
 which shall fix the fair rent and practically give fixity 
 of tenure at that fair rent to the tenant. And then 
 they make suggestions which, if they had only been 
 acted upon and carried out, as I have said, years before, 
 would have altered the social, and to some extent affected 
 the political, question in Ireland. Political questions 
 would still have remained, but they would have remained 
 under different conditions, would have been approached 
 from a different standpoint, would have been discussed 
 in a different manner. 
 Land Act, In reference to the Land Act itself, I must men- 
 
 tion one other of the prominent members of the 
 Irish party to whom I have already referred. I refer 
 especially to Mr. Timothy Healy, now a barrister at the 
 Irish bar, who on this occasion, as upon others, showed 
 the most remarkable ability. Nobody, I think, will 
 more readily say that than my friend Sir H. James, who 
 is near me, and who took part as one of the ministers of 
 the day in helping that Bill through, that the most 
 remarkable ability and acquaintance with this subject 
 was evinced by Mr. Healy in its discussions. 
 
 And, again, I have to point out that two causes 
 operated (even at this date which we have reached, 
 1881) against a full and complete dealing with this 
 Land Question. In the House of Commons itself there 
 was but little general knowledge upon the subject 
 
X HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi 261 
 
 'LMicie wus still, under the limited fraueliise wliicli 
 Ireland then enjoyed (limited in a marked degree, even 
 as compared with that of England and Scotland), a 
 strong l)ody of landlord representatives returned from 
 Ireland. In the House itself there is of course a large 
 (Contingent representing the same interest. Ministers, 
 I ])rcsume, have to consider in a state of government 
 such as ours ]iot merely what theoretically they think 
 to be iiccessary, but what practically they think they 
 can carry through. Nor is the difficulty confined to 
 carrying it through the House of Commons, because there 
 is another and a more difficult barrier to be passed — more 
 difficult u})on this question particularly ; and I wish to 
 emphasise here, my Lords, this point : that I have the 
 most firm belief that the author of this Act, the Govern- 
 ment who have the credit for it, desired most thoroughly 
 to the best of their ability to deal with the matter com- 
 pletely, going to the root of things. But as I well 
 recollect during this discussion in Parliament, we were 
 constantly reminded — the Irish members were constantly 
 reminded — when suggestion after suggestion was made, 
 that, what we had to consider was, that the ship was 
 bound for another port, where the waters were shallow, and 
 suggestion after suggestion, as to evils which have since 
 to some extent been removed, again too late, were made 
 by Irish members and rejected, not upon their merits, 
 Init u})()n the difficulty of jjiloting the measure with 
 those additions safely through l)oth Houses. And here 
 again we have a perpetuation of the same mischief. It 
 is not until the agitation has increased in volume in 
 Ireland and the discontent is wider, that the Arrears 
 Bill is passed : it is not until a later period, wdien there 
 occurs, in 1886 and 1887, the most extraordinary and 
 al)normal fall in })rices that has occurred, I believe, in 
 
262 HISTORY OF LAND ACT, 1881 x 
 
 the 2')resent century, that the Government, under pres- 
 sure from without, apply themselves to a task, the need 
 for which was obvious, as far back as 1881, to those who 
 understood the question. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I have said that this Bill constituted 
 the first, and I admit it to be a great charter for the 
 Irish tenant class. But it will l^e asked, AVhy has it not 
 succeeded ? Why, in spite of its wide-reaching pro- 
 tective provisions for the Irish tenant class, had it not 
 immediately a pacifying effect 1 I will tell your Lord- 
 ships, for herein lies the whole explanation of the con- 
 tinued difficulties which in a greater or less degree 
 continue down to the present time, some of which 1 
 admit have been removed, some of which have been modi- 
 fied, many of which still remain. I will enumerate the 
 Act, 1881 : shortcomings of that Act. In the first instance, it excluded 
 from its provisions the entire body of farmers in Ireland 
 who held by lease, and when I tell your Lordships that 
 the leaseholders were, many of them, men who had had 
 their leases, I will not say forced upon them, Init thrust 
 upon them after the Act, or immediately before the Act 
 of 1870, that they were men in the same rank of life 
 as ordinary tenants at will, holding flirms of the same 
 extent, and no better and no worse in social condition, 
 Laisu- it is oljvious that the exclusion of the leaseholders (^ould 
 Exciudeti. not but be a cause of discontent and of disturbance. For 
 what you had actually existing all over Ireland was this : 
 on one side of a road you had a farmer, with 10 or 
 15 acres of land, paying a rent which, under the pro- 
 visions of the Act, he had a right to have reduced to a 
 fair rent through the mediation of a judicial tril)unal, and 
 on the other side of the road, you had a man, with a farm 
 of the same extent, and held under the same conditions, 
 who was excluded from the court, the sole difference 
 
n^S DEFECTS 263 
 
 between tlie two cases being that one held his land 
 under a written contract, with a piece of sealing-wax 
 upon it, and that the other held it as an ordinary tenant 
 from year to year. 
 
 Another difficulty was this. The great contest of 
 course alwnys has been — all along the line of history in 
 this Land Question — that the tenants were not to be 
 taxed with an increased rent for the improved value 
 they had given by their eflbrts to the land. The Irish 
 members complain that the clause which came to be 
 associated witli the name of Mr. Ilealy, the Healy clause, The ueaiy 
 was not effective for that protection, and their complaint 
 proved afterwards to be realised ; for whereas that clause 
 provided that tenants should not be taxed upon im- 
 provements in the shape of increased rent unless such 
 im])rovements had been made or otherwise compensated 
 for ])y the landlord, yet by the decision of the Court of 
 Appeal in Ireland in the famous case of Adams v. Dun- 
 seath, the then Lord Chancellor Law, who was mainlv 
 res})onsible for the Act of 1881, dissenting, the majority 
 of the Court of Appeal held that length of occupation 
 was a form of compensation to the tenant ; in other 
 vrords, leugtli of enjoyment of that, wdiicli the man had 
 himself created, w^as compensation or the equivalent of 
 compensation, from his landlord. The Act also excluded 
 from its operation all farms wdiich wdioUy or in part 
 were said to be town parks, in other words, in the 
 neighbourhood of towns of a certain population. The 
 Act also worked in relation to turbary rights in such a 
 way as to keep the people from access to the Land Court, 
 in a large number of cases which came under the Act 
 as it originally stood. Thus they had a right to go to 
 tlie Laud Court to have the fair judicial rent fixed, but 
 the courts decided that the right of taking turf in the 
 
264 HISTORY OF LAND ACT, 1881 x 
 
 landlord's bog wliicli had been held as part of the holding 
 in the ordinary sense of those words, was not part of the 
 letting of the holding, and that the power of the land- 
 lord to charge what price he pleased for his turl^ary rights 
 or to take them away altogether, was left untouched, and 
 so it happened that in some cases the landlords recou})ed 
 themselves, by extra charges, for the exercise of turbary 
 rights, for reduction of the rents, and in other cases 
 deterred the tenants from going into the court at all by 
 reason, of the fear and apprehension that they "would be 
 deprived of these rights ; moreover the Act had no pro- 
 vision whatever for the case of labourers. 
 
 I now come to the three principal defects ; it was 
 not retrospective, it was not automatic in its application, 
 and it did not deal with the arrears. Those were the 
 three main difficulties which prevented any immediate 
 effect being experienced from the passage of this Act 
 and which postponed for a considerable time and placed 
 within reach of the tenants, only after considerable 
 delay, expense, and cost, the benefits of the Act itself. 
 
 My Lords, upon each of those points I must say 
 somethinfj. 
 
 I am endeavouring to convey to your Lordships the 
 reasons why, notwithstanding this Act of 1 881, there were 
 still existing the elements of disturl)ance which the Act 
 left untouched, and which required the continuance of the 
 popular movement in order that these points of grievance 
 might be redressed. That is the point I am addressing 
 myself to, and I think your Lordships will really see that 
 it is pertinent. My main argument to your Lordships 
 up to this has been, or a great part at least of 
 my argument has been this, namely, that crime in 
 Ireland springs from the state of the relations of 
 landlord and tenant. That I have, I think, almost 
 
ITS DEFECTS 265 
 
 (Icnionstrated to your Lordsln2:)s. I want to meet the 
 argumeut wliicli lias been suggested in tlie course of 
 the opening of the Attorney-General, in which, I think, 
 lie s]>oke of the advantages which the Irish tenant class 
 derived under the Act of 1881, as being exceptional 
 advantages, unprecedented in the history of other 
 countries, and pointed out that after that Act had 
 passed there could be no pretence for saying there was 
 any seed from which agitation and crime could spriiig. 
 
 But, my Lords, I have another reason, which I will 
 in a moment or two develop to your Lordships, and 
 Avliicli, I think, your Lordships will see is strictly germane 
 to the question. I want to show to your Lordships how 
 tliis Act was met and dealt with by the members whose 
 conduct is here in question. I want to show your Lord- 
 si dps, Avhcn it is said that, in face of this Land Act, 
 tliey continued tlicir agitation and set themselves 
 against it in place of aiding it, how utterly wrong and 
 niistaken that view is, and to justify their conduct in 
 this regard, showing that it w^as the conduct of men 
 anxious for tlie public good. In that view I have satis- 
 iied myself that it is relevant, and I do not propose to 
 trouble your Lordships any longer in relation to it than 
 1 can avoid. 
 
 Now, in relation to the question of the decisions of Act not 
 the court not being retrospective, what I mean is this. Ihe!'^^'*^'^ 
 The court was speedily crowded with applications. 
 Those a})plications, which were preferred at the first sit- 
 ting of the court, were treated as cases then begun, and 
 the decision as to rent reductions dated from that time. 
 J>ut as regards cases after the first application, although 
 years elapsed before they could be dealt with, and before 
 they were dealt with, the eftect of the decision in the 
 reduction of rent did not relate back to the date of the 
 
266 HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi x 
 
 application, but to the date of the judicial decision ; so 
 that, meanwhile, there was running on during the inter- 
 vening period rent, and the accumulating arrears of rent, 
 at the old and, presumably, the unjust or excessive 
 rent. 
 Did not And that, again, my Lords, leads to the second 
 
 deal with . i • i • i • pi c • i r 
 
 Armus. pomt, wliicli IS the question ot the arrears oi rent itseli ; 
 and, I think, I can best and most briefly, and, prob- 
 ably, most clearly, put your Lordships in possession of 
 what I mean to say in reference to this c[uestion of 
 arrears by reading one passage, and one passage, I think, 
 only, from the publication of a witness who will be called 
 before you, and which I adopt as my own argument in 
 the case — I mean the publication by the present Arch- 
 bishop of Dublin, Dr. Walsh, in the November (1888) 
 number of the Contemporary Bevieiv. Let me point 
 out to your Lordships that this whole legislation in rela- 
 tion to landlord and tenant in Ireland rested upon the 
 ground that they were not respectively free contracting 
 parties ; in other words, that the position of the tenant 
 relatively to the landlord was such as to deprive the 
 tenant of free volition in the matter of contracts as to 
 rents. The writer at page 756 of the magazine in cjues- 
 tion says : — 
 
 " Another barrier, possibly of still wider reach in excluding the 
 tenants from the protection of the courts, has been raised by the 
 accumulation, absolutely unavoidable in thousands of cases, of 
 arrears of rent. With singular inconsistency the Land Act of 
 1881, while estal)lishing a tribunal with authority to cut down 
 excessive rents, made no provision for lightening the burthen of 
 accumulated arrears. Under this statute a tenant, who for years 
 had found himself unable to cope with the difficulties of an ex- 
 orbitant rent, might bring his case into court. It might be found 
 that the rent was enormously in excess of a fair rent — in excess of 
 it possibly by 100, 200, or, as sometimes was the case, even by 300 
 
ITS DEFECTS 267 
 
 per cent. An equitable reduction might be efFected by tbe court. 
 But as to tlie arrears tliat had resulted from the excessiveness of 
 this exorbitant rent in the past, the courts had no jurisdiction to 
 reduce them by one farthing. In some cases landlords, whose rents 
 had 1)een seriously cut down by the court, proceeded forthwith to 
 bring the judicial decisions to nought, and to wreak vengeance 
 uiioji the foolhard^y tenants Avho had made the daring venture of 
 endeavouring by process of law to check the confiscation of possibly 
 the Inst remnant of property in their little holdings. This, unhaj)- 
 pily, the law left it fully open to a landlord to do. The power of 
 eviction for the unpaid nrrears of the very rent that had been 
 reduced in court reniainod in the landlord's hands, and unfor- 
 tunately, in not a few cases, it Avas a power exercised without 
 mercy. To a tenant heavily encumbered with arrears the legal 
 right of access to a court for the fixing of a fair rent was, in this 
 state of the law, nothing better than a mockery. A decision of the 
 court, efl'ecting even a notable reduction of his rent, could be of no 
 avail to protect him from ruin if the landlord chose to exercise the 
 power of eviction. That decision, indeed, might itself become the 
 occnsion of his ruin, suggesting to a heartless landlord the exercise 
 of that formidable power as one of the means by which the decision 
 of the court might be frustrated." 
 
 My Lords, one other point and I have said all I 
 intend to say upon this part of the matter, namely, as to 
 there l)eing no inmiediatc and self-operating effect, or, so 
 to speak, automatic effect on the passing of the Act itself Not 
 1 really do feel, with great deference, that I must have 
 failed to convey to your Lordships as clearly as I ought 
 to have been able to do the pertinence of this. The 
 pertinence of this is, that the charge is brought against 
 my clients, that they, under the sham and pretence of 
 endeavouring to redress social grievances, kept up an 
 agitation for purposes partly political, partly personal, 
 l)ut that there was no real social grievance to redress. I 
 am meeting that part of the case and that suggestion by 
 showing what the grievances were, and what their action 
 in relation to those grievances was, and to show your 
 
268 HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi x 
 
 Lordships tliat their action in rehition to tliis Act and 
 after this Act was, all along the line, directed to Tarlia- 
 mentary action and redress, through the operation of 
 Parliament by fresh legislation, by amendments of the 
 existing Acts on the very points of which complaint was 
 made, and from which irritation and causes of disturb- 
 ance were flowing. 
 
 In that relation I wish to say that Mr. Parnell made 
 a suggestion which, if it had been complied with (and 
 like a good many other suggestions it has been partially 
 applied in a recent Act), there might have been im- 
 mediate relief given to the whole class of the tenantry of 
 Ireland who came within its provisions. That sugges- 
 tion was, that the Government should, in their Act, fix a 
 datum line for agricultural rent in Ireland with reference 
 to the Government or Griffith's valuation, that is to say, 
 that they should, upon the passing of the Act, declare 
 that, after next rent- day, the rent of the particular 
 holdings, whetlier it l)e a certain percentage above oi- a 
 certain percentage below, should be lixed with refer- 
 ence to one datum line, giving the landlord, if the result 
 was to fix the rent at too low a point, the right of 
 appeal ; giving to the tenant, if the effect was to fix the 
 rent at too high a point, the right of appeal also. Tliat 
 principle has been adopted, as I shall show your Lord- 
 ships, in reference to an Act passed by the present 
 Government in the year 1887, as to which I shall have to 
 say a word or two hereafter. Every one of the points I 
 have now adverted to, which liave hindered the full 
 benefits that the Legislature intended to flow from this 
 Act, every one of the points which I have mentioned as 
 defects in the Act, were pressed by one or other of the 
 Irish members upon the House of Commons, supported 
 by independent members in the House of Commons, 
 
ITS DEFECTS 269 
 
 again and again and again with 23ertinacity, and, I have 
 no doubt, in the opinion of many, with obstructive 
 pertinacity. 
 
 And now I will show your Lordslii[)S what took place Test cases. 
 after the Act was passed, and the attitude of the Irish 
 nienil)ers in relation to it. Their view was that, with 
 the o1)ject of avoidance of expense to the individual 
 tenants, there should be test cases selected from various 
 parts of Ireland — not the most extreme cases of rack 
 renting, but fair average cases, selected as tests all over 
 the country, and that those properly presented to the 
 judicial tribunal should receive the nid of the Land 
 League, in the hope and in the belief that, if that course 
 were followed, it would lead to inexpensive settling of 
 rent disputes outside the court on a large scale. They 
 did not regard tliis Act of 1881, for the reasons amongst 
 others that I have given, as satisfactory. They looked 
 for the ultimate remedy where the Government of the 
 day now look for it ; in the ultimate scheme of creating, 
 in phice of a mere tenant cultivator, occupying pro- 
 })rietors in the land. But pending that, they had pre- 
 jtared and were preparing test cases for this purpose, 
 at the very time when the executive were advised to 
 take the step they did, of imprisoning the leaders of the 
 Irish movement, and imprisoning the local leaders or 
 heads of the local branches of the Land League ; and 
 that scheme for the carrying through of test cases was 
 not accomplished. 
 
 But, my Lords, I do not know how I can convey to 
 your Lordships' minds the state of the matter. I 
 would like to feel that I had your minds following in 
 the line of thought Avhich I am endeavouring to trace, 
 lor I still feel that this is most ])ertinent to the point. 
 There were other reasons why the Irish members could 
 
1^o HISTORY OF LAND ACT, iSSi x 
 
 not be parties to advising the Irish tenants to rush 
 wholesale into the court." The expense ^YOuhl have l)cen 
 enormous, and has been enormous — so much so, that, in 
 the majority of cases where large reductions have l)een 
 made, I greatly doubt whether even yet the Irish tenants 
 have to any considerable extent felt the benefit of tliem, 
 because the cost of the judicial fixing, the costs of appeal 
 which almost invariably followed, in the earlier years, 
 if not still, and the course which was pursued by the 
 landlords, entailed upon the tenant class in costs, in the 
 mere fixing of the rent reductions, an expense which it 
 would take a considerable number of years of those 
 reductions to recoup. 
 
 But more than that. They had not faith in the con- 
 stitution of the Land Commissions. They were not of 
 the tenant class. 1'hey were mainly drawn from another 
 class, and it was necessary, in their view, to keep up a 
 pressure of pul)lic opinion, that the Land Court might, iu 
 fact, be made in some real sense effective for tlie Avork 
 for which it was intended, and that was all the more 
 necessary because there was another counter influence at 
 work — I hesitate not to say it — directed to paral}^sing 
 the action of the Land Commissioners in Ireland. That 
 was the action of the House of Lords, who, in the very 
 year after this Act had passed, and before its operation 
 had begun to be felt in Ireland, appointed a committee 
 to inquire into the operation of the Land Act of 1881; 
 as Lord Selborne expressed it, like mischievous children 
 wdio, having planted flowers in their garden one day, 
 proceed the next to pull them up by the roots to see 
 whether they are growing or not. It was necessary to 
 excite, it was necessary to maintain public opinion in 
 Ireland if this Act — well-intentioned and broad and 
 liberal in its spirit — was not in its administration to be 
 
JTS DEFECTS 271 
 
 wliolly and totally impaired and defeated. And so 
 striking, my Lords, was that conduct of the House of 
 Lords, the same House that was responsible for the 
 rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, the 
 same House whose action has given force and vigour 
 and vitalitv to tlie Land LeaQ-ue in L'claiid, that the 
 J louse of (V)mmons considered it their duty to pass a, 
 resolution for whicli, so far as J know, tlicre is no parallel 
 ov precedent in Jiistory, on the 27th of February 1882, 
 before tliis Act liad been in operation for one year, 
 '■'riiat Parliamentary inrpiiry at the present time into 
 the working of the L'ish Land Act, tends to defeat 
 the operation of that Act and must be injurious to the 
 interests of good government in L-eland." 
 
 J\ly Lords, there is the justification, ample I submit 
 it is, for the position whicli the Lisli members took up 
 in relation to that Act, and why they wisely, properly, 
 prudently, as I conceive, and as I submit, warned the 
 tenant class from rushing indiscriminately into court. 
 
XI. 
 
 THE EVENTS OF 1882 
 
 Recapitu- My Lofcls, I liavG troubled your Lordships with some 
 '^^''"'' historical account of the Land Act of 1881, and I have 
 pointed out the reasons why that Land Act had not, in 
 its effect, been immediately felt over the whole of 
 Ireland. I do not intend giving your Lordships the 
 rest of the history of the remedial land legislation 
 in Ireland, at anything like the same length. I re- 
 ferred to that earlier part of it with the mere purpose 
 of showing your Lordships that the acti<m of the Irish 
 Parliamentary party, dictated mainly and guided mainly 
 by Mr. Parnell, whom I and my learned friend Mv. 
 Asquith specially represent, was a constitutional a<ition 
 for the bettering of the condition of the people of Ireland 
 by the action of Parliament ; and I need not say that, if 
 that is the right description of the main character of 
 their policy, it is a statement that they were pursuing 
 the best methods of putting down crime and outrage by 
 striking at the causes from which they l)elieved crime 
 and outrage sprung. 
 
 My Lords, I have mentioned the fact of the arrest of the 
 leaders of the movement and of a number of others who 
 might not properly be described as local leaders. At 
 the time those arrests took place the Land League had 
 gone to very considerable expense in preparing for 
 
XI LADIES' LAND LEAGUE 273 
 
 sul)mission to the Land Court some thousand test cases, 
 representing various classes, whose claims to reduced 
 rent it was proposed to submit to the Land Court. 
 
 I have, at this stage, to make a passing reference to Ladies' 
 tlie Ladies' Land League. This Ladies' Land League League, 
 existed for a short time Lefore the suppression of the 
 J^and League proper in October 1881, and it was finally 
 dissolved by the action of Wx. Parnell soon after the 
 release from Kilmainham, namel}^ in the August of 1882; 
 and I may here mention that, upon the occasion of the 
 dissolution, Mr. J\'irne]] undertook to discliaroe the 
 liabilities which had been undertaken by the Ladies' 
 Land League. Those liabilities were mainly lial)ilities 
 in respect of tlie maintenance of suspects in prison, the 
 ]elief of the families of suspects, the defence of a number 
 of prisoners, and tlie assistance of evicted tenants. I 
 will dismiss this matter by saying that one of those 
 liabilities had relation to a matter of which the Attorney- 
 General has given evidence. I refer your Lordships to 
 the evidence of ]\lr. llyan, solicitor, at pages 2821 and 
 2822, where lie speaks of having received a clieque, 
 signed I think by Mr. Parnell and by Mr. Arthur 
 O'Connor, for a sum, as well as I recollect, of £50, for 
 the defence of certain persons who had l)een charged 
 in connection with the blowing up — or rather with 
 tlie attempt to blow up — a house called Weston 
 House. 
 
 I may dismiss, I think, the story of the Ladies' Laud 
 League very briefly ; indeed I doubt if I should have 
 referred to it at all, but to remind your Lordships of a 
 statement of a rather remarkable kind which the 
 Attorney-General was instructed to make in his opening 
 of the case. Your Lordships will find it at page 15 of the ^^.^^ 
 opening, on the second day. deferring to Miss Reynolds, Keynoids. 
 
 T 
 
274 THE EVENTS OF iSS2 xi 
 
 who appears to have been a prominent mem1)er of that 
 body, he used this hmguage : — 
 
 " Whose career will be traced, whose course through the couutry 
 will be traced by the deeds which followed her agitation." 
 
 When that statement was made by the Attorney- 
 General, it conjured up in my mind a picture of deeds 
 of bloodshed and of violence following the appearance 
 of this lady wherever she went through this country ; a 
 picture of this lady wading through blood and leaving 
 bloody footprints behind her. Your Lordships have 
 heard the whole of this case ; you have had volumes of 
 evidence, and I do ask. Where is there to l)e found, in 
 any part of this evidence, any justification whatever for 
 that broad statement ? Of course, as I have said, that 
 statement was made upon instructions. Upon whose 
 evidence ? Where is the justification for it ? 
 
 My Lords, while in Kilmainham, JMr. Parnell was 
 engaged in preparing a measure which afterwards was 
 adopted, piecemeal, by successive governments and 
 different parties. He had the permission of Mr. Forster 
 to have interviews with Mr. Maurice Healy, who, I 
 believe, is one of the persons here accused, who is a 
 solicitor in considerable practice and of consideral)le 
 Arrears al)ility in ( Jork ; and Mr. Parnell and Mr. Ilealy daring 
 Mr. Parnell's imprisonment were engaged in preparing 
 a bill dealing with the cjuestion of arrears and dealing 
 with the question of admission of leaseholders, and with 
 some other matters of minor importance. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I wish here to make one point 
 intelligible to your Lordships. It is not denied by Mr. 
 Parnell, it is not denied by his colleagues, that he advised 
 the tenants to combine for their own protection ; that 
 he did not differentiate in advising this combination — 
 
 Bill. 
 
THE ARREARS BILL 
 
 275 
 
 whether this be right or be wrong, I wish to state it 
 cle.'irly iuid iiiiiiiistnkubly — ^lic did not differentiate 
 between what may lie called the strong tenants and the 
 weak tenants. His o1)ject was mainly the protection of 
 the weak tenants. He belie\'ed, and I shall justify that, 
 I think, by figures which cannot Ije questioned, that in 
 cases of all tenants, some in better condition, some in 
 worse condition, the rents which, under their supposed 
 contracts, they were undertaking to pa}', were excessive 
 rents, and rents which could not be paid out of the land, 
 and he thought it perfectly justifiable, undoubtedly, to 
 get a combination, in wliich, all having an equit- 
 al)le claim for reduction, all should act as a combined 
 l>ody, the strong in their coml)ination protecting the 
 weak. 
 
 My Lords, as Hansard will, in the course of Mr. 
 Paru ell's examination (I do not stop to read it now), 
 disclose, he had, in his place in Parliament, publicly, 
 when tlie Land Act of 1881 was under discussion, 
 pointed out that the troul)le, tlie disturbance, would 
 come from the smaller and weaker class of tenants, and 
 during the progress of that bill he, from his place in 
 Parliament, offered that if the Government of the day 
 would l)ring in an Arrears Bill dealing witli the smaller 
 (dass of tenants, below a given point in valuation, that 
 his, Mr. IVirnell's, influence, and all the influence which 
 he could command, would be directed to urging and 
 bringing pressure of opinion to l)ear upon the larger 
 tenants and those better able to pay. Therefore, from 
 the first, whether his policy was right or whether it was 
 wrong, it was an openly declared policy, and one which 
 undoubtedly, if effect had been given to it, would have 
 saved a great deal of disaster and a great deal of 
 trouble. 
 
276 THE EVENTS OF 1882 xi 
 
 The arrears portion of Mr. Parnell'.s bill was adopted 
 ill the succeeding year. The bill was prepared in 1881, 
 and it was adopted in the succeeding year. The portion 
 of his bill which related to the leaseholders was not 
 adopted until a later period, not till 1887, and then 
 the government of parties had changed, and the party, 
 now in power, passed the Leaseholders J3ill of 1887, 
 tardily, piecemeal, but still passed it ; tardily, although 
 the mischief to which it was directed was still going on, 
 and when, as I have before said, other diili('ulties more 
 important supervened. By delay the measure itself was 
 deprived of a great deal of its efficacy. 
 "TheKii- My Loi'ds, I pass from that matter, and I have little 
 TieatjV'' more to say upon the history of the land legislation. 
 In the spring of 1882 about one thousand men were 
 lying still in prison, in Kilniainham, under the circ^um- 
 stances that I have previously adverted to, with no 
 definite charge against them, with no prospect of being- 
 brought to trial or face to lace with their accusers, in 
 this state of thino-s there w^as a urowiniTC feeling', and it 
 is not wonderful that it should have existed and grown, 
 that this condition of things could not continue. The 
 country was not becoming more peaceful, crime was not 
 lessening, on the contrary, disturbances were greater, 
 crime on the increase, and in the spring of that year it 
 would appear that some of the Ministers of that da}% 
 notably Mr. Cliani1)erlain, was in communication with 
 Captain O'Shea, to whose evidence I have now to refer 
 your Lordships. Then it was that those interviews, in 
 relation to which Captain O'Shea has spoken, took place 
 between him and Mr. Parnell, and as regards this part 
 of the case, except on one or two points, which are 
 not perhaps of the first moment, but still of some 
 moment, there is little criticism to make upon Captain 
 
''THE KILMAINHAM TREATY'' 277 
 
 O'Shea's account of tlie matter. Mr. Pariiell said in 
 effect : pass an Arrears Bill, clro]5 the Coercion Act, 
 which has not answered its purpose, do not trouhle 
 about the question of release of myself and my colleagues, 
 that will come in time ; the point is to 0-0 at the causes, 
 as we believe them to be, of the disturbance of the 
 country. 
 
 And in the result that course was adopted. Mr. 
 Parnell undoubtedly conveyed to Captain O'Sliea clearly 
 and distinctly that he desired to meet all the executive 
 of the League, including Mr. Davitt, including Sheridan, 
 including Brennan, all the executive of the League, in 
 order that he might exjjlain to them and justify the 
 course he had taken in relation to that which may be 
 cidled a negotiation, and which afterwards was called 
 " tli(^ Kilmainham treaty," and that he might bring 
 them "into line" witli his own course of action, and 
 justify that course of action before the country and 
 before his colleagues. Captain O'Shea is utterly mis- 
 taken in saying, according to my instructions, that any 
 exception was made in the case of Brennan. Why sucli 
 an exception should be suggested 1 know not, for I shall 
 presently show your Lordships there is practically no 
 evidence wdiatever aoainst Brennan in the course of this 
 case; but it is suggested by Captain O'Shea that ]\lr. 
 Parnell stipulated for an exception in Brennan's case, 
 and that he was not to be immediately released. In 
 the same breath Captain O'Shea has distinctly, in terms, 
 mentioned that the release of Mr. Parnell was not a 
 matter to be put forward, that that w^ould come in good 
 time ; tlie other men were the important parties to be 
 considered. 
 
 I think T can give your Lordsliips an exact account 
 (•r (his by the mouth of Captain O'Shea hhiiself 1 have 
 
278 THE EVENTS OF 1882 xi 
 
 no riglit at tins moment to read this, except that the 
 documents, if Captain O'Sliea were recalled, as I re- 
 served the riglit to recall him, would speak for them- 
 selves. I was going to refer to his own contemporaneous 
 letter, and his own contemporaneous speech in Parliament. 
 It is convenient that I should read them now, and if my 
 friend desires that I should recall Captain O'Shea for the 
 purpose of putting them to him, or for any other purpose, 
 of course I would pursue that course. The first is his 
 speech— the matter was brought before the House of 
 Commons by the late Mr. Forster. I am reading the 
 Hansard, speccli from Hausard, and I am only going to trouble your 
 Speech^ Lordships with a very short extract. He says this : 
 
 the 
 Comnious. 
 
 " Their conversation " [that is to say, the conversation between 
 him and Mr. Parnell], " indeed, was merely that of personal friends, 
 and certainly not of political allies, which the House was aware 
 they had never been held to exactly be. Although he made no 
 remark at the time, he observed with surprise " [that is, Captain 
 O'Shea, your Lordships Avill understand] — "he observed with sur- 
 prise, there was a total absence in the honourable member of I'ancuur 
 or ill-feeling." [The honourable meml)er was Mr. Parnell. I need not 
 again explain that.] " On the contrary, the honourable gentleman 
 told him of the kindness and consideration he had received in Kilmain- 
 ham, and asked him to bring forward another Irish grievance in Com- 
 mittee of Supply, and that was that prison officials in Ireland were very 
 much worse paid than the prison officials in England. AVhen he 
 (Mr. O'Shea) expressed his opinion that the continued imprisonment 
 of the suspects was exercising a most pernicious effect in Ireland, 
 and his hope that the Government would make his release permanent 
 the honourable member replied — and he afterwards took a note of 
 Avhat the honourable gentleman had said — 'Never mind the 
 suspects, we can well afford to see the Coercion Act out. If you 
 have any influence, do not fritter it away upon us ; use it to get the 
 arrears practically adjusted. Impress on every one your own 
 opinion as to the necessity of making the contribution from the 
 State a gift and not a loan ; and, further, the equal necessity of 
 absolute compulsion. The great object of my life, added the 
 
XI "THE KJLMAINHAM TREATY" 279 
 
 Iionourable member, is to settle the Land Question. Now that the 
 Toi-ics liave adopted my view as to peasant proprietary, the 
 extension of the Puixhase Clauses is safe. You have always 
 supported the leaseholders as strongly as myself; but the great 
 object now is to stay evictions by the introduction of an Arrears 
 I'ill.' He (]\Ir. O'Shea) proceeded then to speak of the demoralisa- 
 tion of the countr}^ of the no-rent manifesto, of Ca})tain Moon- 
 liglit. and of otiicr intimidators. The honourable gentleman 
 replied — 'Lot eviction ccnsc, and terroi'ism will cease. The Moon- 
 lighters are sons of small tenants threatened with eviction, who 
 believe the oid}^ escape for themselves and families, is by preventing 
 tlieir luore solvent jicighbours payiiig their rent.'" 
 
 That was followed l)y a letter wliicli was publislied o'Sheas 
 ill the papers of the day of the 18th May 1882. "^Ii^^^^fZ 
 copy which appears to have been put in, in the evidence T^J^^^^^ 
 of Captain O'Shea, at page 415, is one addressed to 
 The Freeman; my recollection is, it also appeared in 
 tlic London papers, amongst others, in The Tunes: — 
 
 " Sir— Lest there should longer in the public mind be the 
 slightest misconception as to my repudiation of Mr. Forster's public 
 version of my private conversation, I beg that you will insert the 
 following " 
 
 Then this part of the letter is conversant with the 
 interview which Captain O'Shea had with Mr. Forster 
 and others, wdiich is not germane to the point 1 am now 
 upon. Then he proceeds : — 
 
 " Now as to the memorandum alleged by Mr. Forster to repre- ' 
 
 sent my conversation with him on the 30th of April. In it he 
 informed the Cabinet that I had used tlie following Avords : ' The 
 conspiracy which has been used to get up boycotting and outrages 
 will now be used to put them down.' " 
 
 Tlien Captain O'Shea proceeds : — 
 
 " The following are the facts : I myself knew nothing about the 
 organisation of the Land League. T')at I told Mr. Forster that I 
 had been informed by ]\Ir. Parnell the day before, that, if the arrears 
 
28o THE EVENTS OF 1SS2 
 
 question was settled, tlie organisation would explain the boon to the 
 people, and tell them they ought to assist the operation of the 
 remedial measure in the tranquillisation of the country. 1 added 
 that Mr. Parnell had expressed his belief that Messrs. Davitt, Egau, 
 Sheridan, and Boyton Avould use all their exertions, if placed in a 
 position to do so, to advance the pacification, and that Mr. .Sheridan's 
 iutiuence was of sufficient importance in the west, owing to the fact 
 that he had been the chief organiser of the Land League in 
 (Jonnaught before his arrest, while Mr. Boyton had hold a similar 
 appointment in the province of Leinster. On these points I heard 
 no more, I know no more, and I said no more." 
 
 If there be, as I do not think there is, any materi.il 
 difference between tlie account which Captain O'Shea 
 gave in the box and the account tliis contemporaneous 
 statement proves, I need hardly point out to your Lord- 
 ships that the latter would be more reliable ; but I think 
 in the box Captain O'Shea did make a statement sub- 
 stantially agreeing with what I have pointed out. It is 
 a little remarkal)le. He is asked, in the course of his 
 cross-examination I think, whether that letter is a correct 
 statement of the facts, and he says that is correct, 
 and your Lordships will ol^serve there is no suggestion, 
 in any part either of the speech or of the letter, of the 
 exception of any particular person from the question of 
 release; and upon that point, as I am instructed, Mr. 
 Parnell will assure your Lordships that there was no 
 such exception suggested by him, and that there was no 
 reason that he was aware of for such exce])tion. 
 
 I shall have, of course, at a later stage, both with 
 regard to Boyton and Sheridan, to point out the l>road 
 statements made by the Attorney-General as to what 
 they did and the part they played, and to show your 
 Lordships how utterly insignificant is the evidence 
 in support of the statements made against either one or 
 the other of those gentlemen. The question whether 
 
" THE KILMAINHAM TREATY'' 281 
 
 Sheridan was or was not mixed up with the Invineibles 
 stands wholly apart and distinct. The Attorney-General 
 was instructed to say, again tpiite inaccurately, that a 
 true bill was found against Brennan, and a true Inll 
 found against him in connection with the Invincible 
 Conspiracy. 
 
 The Attorney-iTleiieral made a similar statement in 
 relation to Mr. Patrick Egan, Imt of this there is not a 
 tittle of evidence. Whether or not there was a ques- 
 tion of the issue of a warrant against Egan under Mr. 
 Eorster's Act I do not know, but all I can say is that 
 tlicjc is no pi'oof of a warrant under that Act, even at 
 tlie present moment. However, 1 do not desire to 
 anticipate what I have to say upon that matter. 
 
 On the 2d of May Mr. Parnell and his colleagues 
 were released from Kilmainham. On the 6th of May 
 ]\Ir. Davitt was released, and it is perfectly true that 
 ]\lr. Parnell did desire straightway to see Mr. Davitt, 
 and to explain to him the position of things, he having 
 been for a considerable time imprisoned in Portland, 
 and having no knowledge of what was going on outside. 
 
 Now, my Lords, wdiat was the position of things ? 
 For, in spite of the way in which it has been sought, in 
 the speech made by the Attorney-General in this case, 
 and in the so-called particulars which have been de- 
 livered, to tone down the gravity of certain accusations, 
 it will be plain to your Lordships that the writers of 
 '' ParnolHsm and Ciime " intended to convey to tlie 
 public mind that Mr. Parnell and Mr. Parnell's colleagues 
 knew of, and were parties to, the Invincil^le con- 
 sjnracy. What, then, was the state of things? My 
 Lords, the state of things was this : that at that moment 
 a signal triumph of the policy of ]\lr. Parnell had been 
 achieved ; the Government had agreed to make the 
 
282 THE EVENTS OF i8S3 xi 
 
 Arrears Bill, to which he attached great importance, a 
 question of Government policy ; they had reversed the 
 action and the policy of Mr. Forster and of Lord Cowper; 
 Mr. Forster had resigned, Lord Cowper had resigned ; 
 and in their stead were sent Lord Spencer and Lord 
 Frederick Cavendish — a man universally respected and 
 universally esteemed, than whom no more amiable man 
 probably in public life has been seen in our time, or who 
 had fewer, if any, enemies. They went to L'cland, Lord 
 Spencer and Lord Frederick Cavendish, bearing the olive 
 branch in their hands — for the first time, I may almost 
 say, since the Lord Lieutenancy of Lord Fitzwilliam. 
 They were received with acclamation ; there was no 
 hollow pretence in it. A change was recognised — a 
 change pointing to better days, to a better understanding 
 of the Lisli question, to more weight l)eing given to 
 the policy of the leaders of L-eland. And then comes 
 that awful tragedy on the very day of their arrival in 
 Phoenix Park. 
 The My Lords, the most malignant enemy of the Irish 
 
 Park people could not have struck a more malignant blow ; 
 Murders. ^^_^j ^^ -^ indeed hard if public men are to have accusa- 
 tions levelled against them of complicity in so foul a 
 story, and of subsequent condonation of so foul an act, 
 and to Ije held up to public obloquy and opprobrium, 
 when they raise their voice in condemnation of that 
 dastardly deed, as hypocrites professing sentiments of 
 abhorrence which are assumed for the occasion. Lord 
 Frederick Cavendish's death undoubtedly was not even 
 within the objects of those wretched men who had em- 
 barked upon this detestable enterprise. Lord Frederick 
 Cavendish met his death because, with the true instincts 
 of a brave man, he was fiii'litino- amiinst the murderers, 
 in defence of his friend and companion. AVhat was the 
 
XI THE PI UK NIX PARK MURDERS 283 
 
 efrect upon Mr. Parnell, upon Mr. Dillon, upon Mr. 
 ])a,vitt, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, and others who at that 
 time happened to be in London ? AVe have had an 
 account of that from Captain O'Sliea. Were these men 
 acting ? Were they assuming a part ? In the interview 
 with the /r/,s7/, World which has l>een read, Mr. Henry 
 (icorge dcscri1)ed tlic condition in which he found these 
 gentlemen. Captain O'Sliea speaks of Mr. Parnell's 
 broken health and broken-down appearance. You have 
 the hxct stated that, so horrified and dismayed did Mr. 
 rarnell appear to be, yielding to a moment of despair, 
 li(' offered to ]\lr. (iladstone to retire from public life. 
 Was aJl this acting? AVas this the grossest hypocrisy, 
 or was it the conduct of men deeply impressed with the 
 liori-or of wliat had occurred, anxious to show, in every 
 wa\' tlicy could, tlieir detestation of what had happened? 
 Tlieir Manifesto has already been read. It is at 
 page 170. The Attorney-General was instructed to say, 
 in reference to this Manifesto, that Mr. Parnell signed 
 it unwillingly. Where did he get that ? Whence 
 came the instructions for that statement? Who has 
 alleged it ? Captain O'Shea has denied it, and has said 
 plainly and unmistakably that Mr. Parnell was a 
 Avilling and assenting party to it. My Lord, this is the 
 JManifesto : — 
 
 " To THE People of Ireland — On the eve of what seemed a JManifesto. 
 hvight future for our countiy, that evil destiny which has apparently 
 pursued us for centuries has struck another blow at our hopes, 
 whicli cannot be exaggerated in its disastrous consequences. In 
 this hour of sorrowful gloom we venture to give an expression of 
 our profoundest sympathy Avitli the people of Ireland in the calamity 
 that has befallen our cause, through a horrible deed, and to those 
 who had determined at the last hour that a policy of conciliation 
 should supplant that of terrorism and national distrust. We 
 earnestly hope that the attitude and action of the whole Irish 
 
284 THE EVENTS OF 1882 
 
 people will show the world that assassination such as has startled 
 ns almost to the ahandonnieut of hope for our country's future, is 
 deeply and religiuusly a])horrent to their every feeling and instinct. 
 " We appeal to you to show hy every manner of expression that 
 amidst the universal feeling of horror which this assassination has 
 excited, no people feels so intense a detestation of its atrocity, or 
 so deep a sympathy for those whose hearts must be seared hy it, 
 as the nation upon whoso })rospects and reviving ho[)es it may 
 entail consequences more ruinous than have fallen to the lot of 
 unhappy Ireland during the present generation. AVe feel that no 
 act has ever been perpetrated in our country during the exciting 
 struggles for social and political rights of the past fifty years that 
 has so stained the name of hospitaljle Ireland as this cowardly and 
 improvoked assassination of a friendly stranger, and that until the 
 murderers of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke are brought 
 to justice that stain will sully our country's name. 
 
 " (Signed) Charles S. Parnell. 
 
 John Dillon. 
 
 Michael Davitj." 
 
 My Lords, the Attorney-General, after reading this, 
 said : — 
 
 " It will be proved by Captain O'Shea that Mr. Parnell objected 
 to sign that document and only signed it under the necessities of the 
 case, and objected to its terms." 
 
 My Lords, Captain O'Sliea has disproved tliat allegation. 
 Davitt's At tlie same time, or about tlic same time, tliere 
 
 TiJ appeared in Hie Standard a letter from Mr, Davitt, 
 the whole of which I do not propose to read to your 
 Lordships, ]:)nt a passage from it I desire to read. It 
 appeared in lite Standaixl of the lOtli May 1882, and 
 I take leave here to make a passing acknowledgment, 
 and I think it is due, to the general tone with which the 
 Press of England received the account of tlie horril)]e 
 event, and to the general attitude that the British pn1)lic 
 maintained in regard to it, with few exceptions. The 
 Times, I am sorry to say, was one of the exceptions. 
 
XI THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS 285 
 
 AYitli hardly an exception, the part of the Press that i^avitt's 
 had l)cen found the most liostile to the Irish leaders, to r/^? 
 
 • . 1 • 1 • • ii p T • 1 1 • Standard. 
 
 joined m reJievmg them ironi any complicity or part in 
 tills matter. The attitude of the general public under 
 circumstances of great excitement, which might have led 
 to demonstrations of a fierce kind against the Irish 
 people, was calm and dignified. The English people 
 seemed to have under the circumstances exercised over 
 themselves entire control, and the Press of the country 
 did iKjthino; to raise ao-oravated feeling. 
 
 On the 10th of May Mr. Davitt wrote to The. 
 Standard a letter, and he hegan by acknowledging the 
 temper in which they had referred to the occurrence. 
 
 " Sir — The a<lmiral)le temper that has marked your language 
 since tlie horril)le occurrence of Saturday last convinces me tliat any 
 reply I may make to the questions you address to me in your leader 
 of this nu)rning will receive a fair hearing. Believing this, I would 
 feel that 1 was neglecting a duty to myself and an opportunity of 
 vindiciiLing, to the best of my al)ility, the Land Movement in Ire- 
 land, if I permitted your remarks of to-day to pass unanswered. 
 For the opinion you express of the sincerity of my condemnation 
 of the murders that have excited your just indignation, and for 
 your belief that neither ]\Ir. Parnell, Mr. Dillon, nor myself would 
 be guilty of an alliance with assassins I am thankful, as it is in 
 marked contrast with the expressions of some of your contem- 
 poraries." 
 
 Then he speaks of his having just come from prison, 
 not knowing what has taken place meanwhile, and he 
 was, as most of the public are, unaware of the various 
 denunciations of crime that had taken place. 
 
 " I came out of Portland ])rison at three o'clock on Saturday 
 afternoon last. I had been confined in solitude for fifteen months, 
 without having from the hour of my reception to that of my release 
 seen a newspaper or even received a communication that did not 
 pass thi'ough the hands of the governor. Yet in face of these facts, 
 which cannot be uidcnovvn to those who understand the rigorous 
 
286 
 
 THE EVENTS OF 1SS2 
 
 Davitt's 
 Luttur 
 to The 
 Standard. 
 
 discipline of a convict prison, you ask me to come forward and 
 make a clean breast of information that would throw light upon 
 the atrocity of last Saturday. You must have overlooked the 
 situation in which I had been placed from the 3d February 
 1881 to the afternoon of the day of Lord Cavendish's murder, 
 when you implied that I, in common with Messrs. Parnell and 
 Dillon, must possess information that would enable the assassins to 
 be tracked. I am assured by those gentlemen — though no such 
 assui'ance is needed by any one who knows them— that they have 
 no such information. They could not therefore lend any more 
 assistance in bringing the assassins to justice than that given in 
 the manifesto issued in our names and placarded throughout the 
 length and breadth of Ireland, so that our people should see that 
 we placed the murderers of Lord Cavendish in their true position, 
 as assassins of the people's cause, who had forfeited all claim to 
 shelter or sympathy, and whose capture alone could remove the 
 stain which their crime has left upon the character of Ireland. 
 
 " You next call upon my friends and myself to employ our re- 
 covered liberty to give the world solid and unanswerable guarantees 
 of the loathing with which we regard all forms of outrage, by 
 making a fresh pilgrimage through the country, and to never desist 
 from denouncing assassination until these hideous crimes are exor- 
 cised from the land. I agree with you, sir, that such a pilgrimage 
 ought to be made even now. Had it been made before, it is my 
 firm belief that the terrible tragedy of the Phreiiix Park, and many 
 another tragedy, which, though it has not attracted so much 
 attention, has wrung heartstrings as bitterly, would never have 
 occurred. AVhy have there not been such pilgrimages 1 Let the 
 facts answer, so far, at least, as I am concerned. From the first 
 initiation of the Land League I warned the Irish people against 
 outrages as the greatest danger of the moment. 
 
 "When I went to America in May 1880, wherever I spoke 
 from New York to San Francisco, I did my best to lay the demon 
 of revenge Avhich bitter memories of eviction evoke in the hearts 
 of exiled millions. On the day of my arrival in Ireland from my 
 last lecturing tour in America in November 1880, in an interview 
 published in all the Irish newspapers, I denounced violence and 
 outrage in the strongest terms I could command. On the following- 
 day I did the same thing from the platform, and pushing on the 
 very pilgrimage you now propose to me, I spoke in the same wa}" 
 
XI THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS 287 
 
 in all the four provinces of Ireland. In addition to this, I issued Davitt's 
 instructions of similar tenor to the organisers of the Land Lea"ue, ^^''*f'" 
 and I drew up, i)rinted, and distributed circulars pointing out to Siamhml. 
 the people the inevitable consequences of revenge being allowed to 
 supplant the moral forces which alone could win their social rights, 
 and in the name of the Land League called upon its branches 
 throughout the country to deal with the outrage frenzy as the one 
 paramount tlanger Avhich threatens the existence of the movement 
 with destruction, the hopes of our peasantry with annihilation, and 
 the character of our jieople with the stigma of assassination." 
 
 Tlieii he proceeds : — 
 
 "These are the facts. ^ In verification I appeal to the reports 
 of the Irish Press, of the American Press, and of the Government 
 shorthand Avriters. There is another fact. Ere I had completed 
 the seventieth day of my pilgrimage I was arrested, and since then 
 until three o'clock last Saturday afternoon, a period of fifteen months, 
 I have l)een Iniried in Portland Prison. 
 
 " Now, sir, I have answered your questions ; let me put a 
 question to you. Supposing that I, or au}^ one else, were to start 
 on the pilgrimage you propose, and that after we had gone so far, 
 news were to come to you that we had been beaten into silence 
 with the bludgeon, or stricken down with the l)ullet, or cut to 
 pieces by the knives of assassins, what would you sny % Would 
 3^ou not say that we had been silenced by those who wished out- 
 rages to co?itiinie % What then will you say of the no less effective 
 maimer in which I Avas silenced ? Was it not also that outrages 
 might continue? Was it not in furtherance of an atrocious policy 
 tl\at murder and outrage should follow in the Avake of the jjaiid 
 League tliat Irish landlordism might be re])rcsented to the I>ritish 
 people as battling, not Avith justifialtle reform, but Avith social 
 savagery ? Does this seem to you too wicked a policy to be 
 credited % Look at the facts. Is it not the policy that has been 
 carried out by J\lr. Forstcr ? I sj^eak of m}\self only as an exam})]e. 
 Is it not true that my arrest was followed by the arrest in every 
 locality of the men avIio Avere the safest and surest leaders of the 
 ])opular movement, the men Avho most steadfastly and strongly set 
 their faces against outrage ? Is it not a fact that when they Avere 
 arrested, conservative and prudent men were driven into silence 
 by fear of arrest, and the guidance of an excited people, smarting 
 
288 
 
 THE EVENTS OF 1882 
 
 Davitt's 
 Letter 
 to The 
 Standard. 
 
 under the most cruel provocations, was left to the secret councils 
 of irresponsible passion 1 I am not charging Mr. Forster Avith 
 being a monster. Personally he is, I doubt not, an estimable 
 gentleman ; but weaknesses, which in private life are unobserved, 
 become so magnified Avhen he who is suljject to them is made the 
 absolute ruler of a nation that they have the effect of crimes. ]\lr. 
 Forster found in Ireland a traditional policy of government, lie 
 followed it ; or perhaps, to speak more correctly, it controlled him. 
 What are the facts of Irish history 1 Are they not that over and 
 over again seditious conspii'acies have been allowed to grow, nay, 
 even have been stimulated, in order that a certain stage of crimin- 
 ality should be readied by those whose actions and plans were 
 known to the police, so that the blow sliould be struck at their 
 movements with greater eclat, and the chastisement given be all 
 the more effective from the numbers involved in the revolutionary 
 design ? If such a policy has not been pursued in connection with 
 the present social movement, I have been deceived into believing 
 that my reconsignment to jjenal servitude was in consequence of 
 having endeavoured to thwart such a policy at the time when it 
 began, in my opinion, to show itself to all who are conversant with 
 Castle tactics in Ireland, and who know the desperate position in 
 which Irish landlordism would be placed if English opinion could 
 not be turned from the consideration of land refoi'ui and focussed 
 upon outrages. I was either sent back to penal servitude in 
 pursuance of such a policy, or I was not. Mr. Forster, who, I 
 suppose, ordered my arrest, can ex}jlain why I was struck down 
 without any explanation given to me, or any chance afforded to 
 defend myself against whatever charge had determined my arrest. 
 Three weeks previous to that event Mr. Forster declared in the 
 House of Commons, in answer to a question i)ut to him by Lord 
 Randolph Churchill, that I had been guilty of no act in connection 
 with my ticket -of -leave that Avould justify the Government in 
 cancelling that document. During those three weeks I was engaged 
 almost every day in denouncing outiage throughout Ireland, in 
 calling attention to undetected crime in a coiuitry having a })olice 
 force of over twelve thousand, and in endeavours to expose what 
 I fully believed to be numbers of nuaiuifactured outrages. If I 
 was not arrested for this work, for what was I arrested ? If upon 
 secret information of ulterior designs, why not charge me with 
 these and crush the founder of the Land League at a blow, b}' 
 
THE PHGZNIX PARK MURDERS 
 
 filiowing the priests and constitutionalists in Ireland that they Daviit's 
 relied upon a man who Avas leading them on to revolution instead (I ml 
 of to a peaceful settlement of thn Land Question 1 I challenge Mr. >ilo,ndard. 
 Forster, or wlioever is res[)onsible for my arrest, to come forward 
 Jiow and declare upon what grounds I was deprived of liberty 
 during the past fifteen months, or allow Dublin Castle to be under 
 the imputation of having removed me from its path, l)ecause of my 
 stand against the policy of conniving at murder and outrage. I am 
 constrnined to make this demand now from a conscientious belief 
 that had I been permitted to contiiuxe my crusade against outrage, 
 to have levelled all the influence of the Land League against the 
 commission of nnu'der and the mutilation of cattle, I could have 
 prevented mimbers of crimes that now stain the name of Ireland, 
 and have averted the horrilile deed of Saturday last. This is no 
 vain boast. I refer Mr. Forster to my speech at Kilbrin, County 
 Cork, a fortnight previous to my arrest, in which I predicted the 
 accumulation of crime that would result from his policy, and held 
 him answerable before Cod for the consequences that would inevit- 
 al)Iy follow from police terrorism and coercion." 
 
 Then, my Lords, in the final passage lie says : — 
 
 " I am a convicted Fenian. Very well, I am. It is true that I 
 was convicted on a false charge sworn to by a salaried perjiu'er, 
 whom I had never seen ere he confronted me in the dock at New- 
 gate, but I do not wish to jilead that." 
 
 J\Ir. Davitt does not wish that to be misunderstood, 
 lie does not mean that he was not rightly charged with 
 hoiiig a Fenian, l>ut he does mean to represent that one 
 of the persons— I thiidc the man was Corydon, who 
 was one of the witnesses — gave false testimony in that 
 particular matter. 
 
 " I would only ask any fair-minded Englishman to read a few 
 chapters of Irish history, to jmt himself in imagination in the place 
 of the son of an evicted Irish peasant, and to answer whether it is 
 any stigma to an Irishman that he has been a Fenian ! The people 
 of Ireland do not thiid< so. Nothing so shows tlie false relations 
 into which the two countries have been brought by misunderstand- 
 ing and misrule as that a man may be a criminal on one side of 
 
 U 
 
igo 
 
 THE EVENTS OF 18S2 
 
 Davitt's 
 Letter 
 to The 
 Standard. 
 
 the Irish Sea and a patriot on the other. And if it be said, as 
 many an unthiidcing Englishman wouhl say, that a Fenian is a man 
 who Avishes to burn, to blow np, to murder, I will not reply even 
 to that, though I know it to be nntrue. I will only ask if it Ije 
 just to hold that the man of mature years must be held to the 
 opinions of his youth. And this, at least, let me say for myself ; 
 if in the hot blood of early manhood, smarting under the cruelties 
 and indignities perpetrated on my country, I saw in an api)eal to 
 force the only means of succouring her, there has dawned upon my 
 graver thoughts in the bitter solitude of a felon's cell a nobler 
 vision — a dream of the enfranchisement and fraternisation of 
 peoples, of the conquering of hate by justice. 
 
 " I have suffered by their power, and, as I believe, by their 
 ignorance and prejudice, but there is in my heiirt to-day no senti- 
 ment of bitterness towards the Englisli people. The gospel of the 
 land for the people is a universal gospel, and in its triumph is 
 involved the social regeneration of England as clearly and as fully 
 as the social regeneration of Ireland. In the heart of whoever 
 receives it rare bitterness and ancient hatred die away ; possibly 
 this may not be understood by you. But one word at least let me 
 say. If you would find a modus vivendi between the English and 
 Irish people it is easy ; treat us as equals, treat us as men. 
 
 "Willingly will I go to Ireland to do whatever I can to further 
 the peaceful doctrines I have always advocated ; but I am confident 
 that nothing I could do or say in Ireland would strike as ellectuall}' 
 at the fell purpose of revenge as the feeling of horror which has 
 been sent like an electric shock through every home of Ireland b}' 
 the slaughter of an innocent and inoffensive Englishman, under 
 circumstances that have lent to the black deed every })ossible attri- 
 bute of atrocity. Yet, further than this, there is a word I woidd 
 say. How can I or any one else protest Avith effect against outrages, 
 Avhen the most brutal and irritating outrages are being connnitted 
 in the name of the laAv, when tender ladies are sent to prison as 
 persons of evil fame, Avhen huts that charity has erected to shelter 
 the unfortunate are torn down, little boys are ruthlessly shot doAvn 
 by the constabulary, and men of the highest character are still held 
 in gaol on suspicion ? — I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 " Michael Davi'it. 
 . "London, 10/A ^luy." 
 
XI THE PHCENIX PARK MURDERS 291 
 
 Your Lords] lip will find, ns 1 have pointed out, that 
 j\lr. Da\dtt was under the impression, and he writes 
 under the impression, that there had not ,been any de- 
 nunciation of outrage ; lie seems to think, if a pilgrimage 
 had been undertalvcn to Ireland, that the fearful crime in 
 l*Ji(cnix Park never would have been perpetrated. As 
 I have said, he was unaware of what I have already- 
 indicated to your Lordships had taken place, which you 
 will hear in fuller detail when the witnesses are called. 
 
 iS[(jw, my Lords, I call attention to this in passing, 
 and I sliall make it clearer later, that the sole foundation 
 u[)()n which the suggestion is made, of knowledge of, 
 ])articipation in, or condonation of the atrocity of the 
 PJioenix Park nuirders, are the forged letters, and your The Forged 
 liordshijjs will find them running through the whole of 
 tli(^. moic scuious allegations which constitute " Parnell- 
 ism and Crime." I will only say one passing word ; I 
 lia\e to consider apart and separately the story of the 
 Invincible cons])iracy in connection with those letters. 
 1 Avould only remind your Lordships at this moment of 
 tlie fa-(its : taking the account of the witnesses called — 
 l)y no means admitting it in fact — the earliest appear- 
 ance of anything like the Livincible conspiracy is first 
 in Octol)er 1881. No one suggests the idea existing 
 anywhere of that infernal society earlier than October 
 1881. 1 say no one suggested it earlier. There is a 
 statement, as my friend Mr. Keid quite properly reminds 
 me, that it was referred to a later date, but the earliest 
 suggestion was then, and that was by one witness only, 
 Delaney. Taking the statement of the witnesses — I 
 know not whether the fact is so or not— the person 
 who apparently first sets the thing on foot is Captain 
 JM'Caircity, the American, who is referred to by the 
 same Delaney, in company with one Tynan — I think, 
 
292 THE EVENTS OF 1SS2 xi 
 
 called No. 1 — and lastly, according to the evidence 
 given, the greatest number — and I am happy to say 
 the number was so small — the greatest nund)er sufjuestetl 
 as having had anything to do with that conspiracy, 
 directly or indirectly, was the number of 30 persons, and I 
 shall presently call your Lordships' attention to the fact 
 that the majority of those — I believe I am right in sa}'- 
 ing the majority of those— have been l)rought to justice, 
 and have been punished, and some of them expiated 
 their crime — I think five of them — on the scaffold. 
 Arrears Tlic Arrears Act was passed in August 1882. I need 
 
 1882. not trouble your Lordships with its details. In its effect 
 it provided that, if the rent due in 1881 were paid, 
 and if there were antecedent arrears wliich the tenant 
 was unable to pay, those antecedent arrears might l)e 
 by the order of the court wiped out l)y the j)ayment 
 of half the antecedent arrears not exceedino; one full 
 year's rent — a boon to the tenants, a much greater l)Oon 
 to the landlords, and certainly a matter of great moment 
 to the peace of the country. 'J'he (juestion of arrears 
 in Ireland is something quite different from the same 
 c[uestion in this country and I would wish your Lord- 
 ships to understand this matter. Arrears may go on in 
 Ireland accumulating for years and years ; if allowance 
 is made by the landlord — I am speaking now of the 
 great run of cases — instead of there l)eing, as is the 
 course here, the wiping out of a half-year's rent, if 50 per 
 cent is allowed, or the third of a year's rent, if 30 per cent 
 is allowed, it simply means that time is given, and the 
 landlord accepts the lower amount, and the arrears go on 
 rolling, so that the statement of three or four years' 
 arrears may represent the accumulation of a very much 
 longer period. However, I do not desire to go in detail 
 into that matter. 
 
THE ARREARS ACT: ITS EFFECT 
 
 293 
 
 My Lords, tlie result of that Arrears Act was exactly its Effect 
 in accordance with Mr. Parnell's anticipations in its °" ^'"""• 
 effects upon the country, and here again I will ask to be 
 allowed to show (hat by reference to figures. Now these 
 figures I have alieady referred to l)efore your Lordships 
 in another connection. They deal with the whole of 
 the niuj'ders ovo- the whole of L-eland, not merely with 
 those of which evidence has been given with the cir- 
 cumstances ill tlie course of this case. That is a limited 
 iuim1)ei'. The iigures show that, taking the two years 
 1880 and 1881, the average of the murders was 12j; in 
 I 882 ahme, 2(3 ; and the average from 1883 to 1887, 4. 
 These figures, A\]tich seem to us to be very important, 
 are compiled froui the statistics put in. As to firing at 
 the person, the average of the two years, 1880 and 
 
 1881, was 45-^ cases. Total in 1882, 58 cases. Aver- 
 age of the five 3ears from 1883 to 1887, 12-G. Incendi- 
 ary cases, average of 1880 and 1881, 283. Total in 
 
 1882, 281 ; and average for the five j^ears 1883 to 1887, 
 UO. Cattle outrages, average 1880 and 1881, 128; 
 total in 1882, 114. Average of the five years 1883 to 
 1887, 01. Threatening letters, average of the years 
 1880 and 1881, 1764; total in 1882, 2009; average 
 of the five yeais 1883 to 1887, 389-8. Firing into 
 dwellings, average of the two years 1880 and 1881, 105 ; 
 in 1882, 117; in the five years 1883 to 1887, 29-6. 
 So that taking 1 he whole number of offences which have 
 been selected by the Attorney-General quite correctly as 
 the most serious— murders, firing at the person, incendi- 
 ary cases, cattle outrages, threatening letters, and firing 
 into dwellings — these are the total figures. Average for 
 the two years 1880 and 1881, total 2338; total in 
 1882, 2035; average of the five years 1883 to 1887, 
 007. ]\Iy Lord-, the place from which these figures are 
 
294 
 
 THE EVENTS OF 1SS2 
 
 taken and grouped in tins order your T.ordships will 
 find in Arthur Charsley's evidence, at page 1951. It is 
 to be remembered that the average for 1880-81 is greatly 
 brought up by the crime in the last three months of 
 1881, when the League had been suppressed and agrarian 
 crime was very great, as shown by the tal)le at page 246. 
 
 Agrarian Crime for Whole of Iiuxano. 
 
 Ill the following, the periods are talen thus: — - 
 1880-81, Land League in force. 
 1882, Land League suppressed. 
 1883-87, National League in force. 
 
 
 Two years, 
 
 1880-81. 
 Average for 
 Two Years. 
 
 Total in 1882 
 alone. 
 
 1883-1887. 
 Average for 
 Five Years. 
 
 Murders .... 
 Firing at Person 
 Incendiary and Arson 
 Cattle Outrages 
 Threatening Letters . 
 Firing into Dwellings 
 
 Totals 
 
 45I 
 
 283" 
 128 
 1704 
 105 
 
 26 
 
 58 
 
 281 
 
 144 
 
 2009 
 
 117 
 
 4 
 
 12-6 
 110 
 
 01 
 389-8 
 
 29-6 
 
 2338 
 
 2635 
 
 607 
 
 I am also reminded, and properly reminded, that the 
 result would be still more strikiim' if there was an omis- 
 
 o 
 
 sion of the years 1886 and 1887, and my learned friend 
 is quite right in calling my attention to that fact, because 
 your Lordships will find, still supporting the argument 
 I have been all along advancing, that with recurrent 
 pressure of distress comes recrudescence of crime, there 
 was happening in 1886, 1887, and 1888 a fresh cause of 
 disturbance not attributed l)y anylx^dy to the Land 
 League or to tlie National League, felt universally in 
 
THE ARREARS ACT: ITS EFFECT 
 
 295 
 
 Ireland, namely, the abnormal fall in agricultural values 
 which practically began to l)e marked in 188G and 1887 
 and continued to 1888, which, in the opinion of all 
 parties in the State, in the ()pini()n of all classes in the 
 community, recjuired further intervention on the part 
 of the jjegislature. 
 
 Indeed it would 1)e correct to say that, even includ- 
 ing the whole of the years up to 1880, l)ut certainly 
 true in a marked way to say excluding 1887 and 1888, 
 that, from the year 1883, crime of all kinds was really 
 abnormally low in Ireland, including agrarian crime. 
 
XII. 
 THE NATIONAL LEAGUE 
 
 Now, my Lords, in October 1882 tlie National lieague 
 Founda- was foundecl, and I have explained to your Lordships 
 National'^ before why, in relation to the National League, we are 
 League. j^j-,|g ^^ p^^ before you with full information and with 
 full detail the proceedings of that body, the proceedings 
 of its central executive, and the action whicli it took. It 
 was founded at a meeting which was convened by a cir- 
 cular of the 18th September 1882, signet] by Mr. Parnell, 
 Mr. Davitt, Mr. Dillon, Mr. Tln^mas Lrennan, I\rr. 
 Thomas Sexton, Mr. T. M. TIealy, Mr. Arthur O'Connor. 
 
 " Imperial Hotel, Lower Sackville Street, 
 "Dublin, \d>th September 1882. 
 "Dear Sir — You are hereby invited to attend a Conference of 
 Representative Men held in the Ancient Concert Kooms, Dublin, on 
 Tuesday, 17th October next, for the purpose of discussing a ])ro- 
 gramnie of reform for Ireland, Avhich will be sul:>mitted for adop- 
 tion by us, the chief feature of which programme will be the unit- 
 ing together on one central platform the various movements and 
 interests that are now a])pealing to the country for separate sanction 
 and support. 
 
 "An early reply, stating whether you can be present at such 
 Conference, will oblige. — Yours very truly, 
 
 "C. S. Parnell. TiroMAS Sexton. 
 
 Michael Davitt. T. ]\I. Healy. 
 
 John Dillon. A. O'Connor. 
 
 Thomas Brennan. 
 " Address replies to Mr. Parnell at ahore." 
 
xii THE NATIONAL LEAGUE 297 
 
 Your Lordships will have observed that I have passed 
 in the narrative, because I wish to keep it distinct, the 
 point at which the evidence of Le Caron comes in, and 
 the interview in London. I intend to follow that out in 
 connection with the American l)ranch of the case, and 
 to give that to your Lordships as a distinct matter. 
 
 In answer to that circular a meeting was held on the 
 I7th October, and I think 1 am right again in saying 
 as to the foundation of this National League, as I have 
 already said in relation to the foundation of the Land 
 lieague, that your Lordships have had put before you 
 by the counsel of the accused for the first time the 
 documents which sliow what the professed ol)jects, the 
 professed means, of each of those organisations was. 
 
 "THE PKOGRAMME OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE, 
 ITth October 1882 
 
 " Resolved — Tliat an association he formed to attain for the 
 Irish })eople the following objects: — 
 
 " 1st. National Self-Government. 
 
 " 2d. Land Law Reform. 
 
 " 3d. Local Self-Government. 
 
 " 4th. Extension of the Parliamentary and Municipal 
 
 Franchises. 
 " 5th. The (levelo}imcnt and encouragement of the Labour 
 and Industrial Interests of Ireland. 
 "That this Association be cnlled 'The Irish National League.' 
 " That the oljjects of the League be defined as follows : — ' 
 
 Your Lordships will recollect that the Land Movement 
 was addressed entirely in its ostensible ol)jects to the 
 (piestion of the land, and the urgency which then existed. 
 I do not wish for one instant to convey to your Ijord- 
 ships the idea that there were not present to the minds 
 of those who took part in it also the national aim of 
 
THE NATIONAL LEAGUE 
 
 obtaining for the Irish people self-government. The 
 pressing object and the pressing necessity of the case was 
 the reform of the land law. 
 
 "Article 1 
 
 "The restitution to the Irish people of the right to manage 
 their own affairs in a parliament elected by the peojjle of Ireland. 
 
 "Article 2 
 
 "(a.) The creation of an occupying ownership or Peasant 
 Proprietary by an amendment of the Purchase Clauses of the Land 
 Act of 1881, so as to secure the advance by the State of the Mdiole 
 of the purchase money, and the extension of the period of repay- 
 ment over sixty-three years." 
 
 (Both of those points, I think, have been adopted ; at all 
 events the main point.) 
 
 " (i.) The transfer by compulsory purchase to county boards of 
 land not cultivated by the owners, and not in the occupation of 
 tenants, for re-sale or re-letting to laljourers and small farmers, in 
 plots or grazing commonages. 
 
 "(c.) The protection from the imposition of lent on im])rove- 
 ments made by the tenant or his })redecessors in title, to )je ellected 
 by an amendment of the Healy clause of the Land Act of 1881. 
 
 "((Z.) The admission of leaseholders and other excluded classes 
 to all the benefits of the Land Act, with the further amendments 
 thereof included in the Land Law (Ireland) Act Amendment ]]ill 
 of Mr. Eedmond. 
 
 "Article 3 
 
 " (d.) The creation of county boards, and the transfer thereto of 
 the fiscal and administrative powers of grand juries. 
 
 "(ft.) The abolition of the principle of nomination by Govern- 
 ment to membership of the following boards : — 
 " The Local Government Board. 
 " The Board of Works. 
 
 " The General Valuation and Boundary Survey. 
 " The Board of National Education. 
 
XII ITS OBJECTS 299 
 
 " The Reformatory and Industrial Schools Board. 
 " 'Flio I'risons l*oaid. 
 " The Fisliery Board. 
 
 " And the transfer of their powers to representatives elected by 
 county l)oards. 
 
 " (r.) The transfer to county l)oar(ls of the management of union 
 worldiouscs, lunatic asylums, and other institutions supported l)y 
 local rates. 
 
 "(</.) Tlic substitution of local for imperial control in the 
 ajipointment and management of the police. 
 
 " ((?.) The extension to county boards of the power to nominate 
 county sheriffs, as at present exercised l>y nuuiicipalities in the case 
 of city sheriffs. 
 
 "(/.) The vesting in county l)oavds of the right of nominating 
 magistrates now enjoyed by Lord Lieutenants of counties. 
 
 "(r/.) The aljolition of the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. 
 
 "Article 4 
 
 "((7.) Tlie extension and assimilation of the Irish Parliamentary 
 and nuuiici]ial franchises to those of England. 
 
 "(/'.) The adoption of the English system in the registration of 
 voters. 
 
 "(r.) The securing that any measure of popular enfranchise- 
 ment introduced for Great Britain shall also be extended to Ireland. 
 
 "Articlk 5 
 
 " Separate legislation to elevate the condition of agricultural 
 labourers to secure :— 
 
 "(ff.) The })roviding of lal)ourers' dwellings, with half-aci'e 
 allotments in the ])roportion of one to every £25 valuation in the 
 case of all holdings, pastoral or agricultural. 
 
 " {h.) The abolition of payment of poor rate in respect of 
 labourers' dwellii\gs. 
 
 "(c.) The repeal of the quarter-acre clause so as to entitle 
 labourers to outdoor relief during illness. Co-operation in the 
 movement for fostering Irish industries by the appointment, in 
 connection Avitli each branch of the organisation, of an Industrial 
 Committee, on which manufacturers, shopkeepers, artisans, and 
 farmers shall have proportional representation, and the functions of 
 which shall be : — 
 
300 THE NATIONAL LEAGUE xn 
 
 "(rt.) To encourage the use and sale of Irish products. 
 
 " (/*.) To co-operate with the National Exhibition Company in 
 securing the genuineness of articles ottered for sale as Irish 
 manufacture, and in the organisation of local exhibitions from time 
 to time. 
 
 " (c.) To obtain scientific reports of the industrial capacities of 
 their various districts, and stimulate the establishment of local 
 manufacturing and cottage industries. 
 
 " Rules 
 
 *' The Irish National League shall consist of Branches and 
 Central Council. 
 
 "The Council shall consist of thirty mem])ers, twenty to be 
 elected by County Conventions and ten by the Irish Parliamentary 
 party. The branches in each county shall send delegates to an 
 annual County Convention ; and each delegate shall cast his vote 
 for the candidate nominated to the Central Council in manner 
 provided by the rules. Members of Parliament shall lie ineligible 
 for election to the Council by a County Convention. 
 
 " The Branches to be organised, rules framed, and the method 
 of nomination and election to the Council settled by an Organising 
 Committee. 
 
 "The Organising Committee shall consist of five members of 
 the Mansion-House Committee for the Belief of Evicted Tenants, 
 five members of the Executive of the Labour and Industrial Union, 
 five members of the Council of the Home Bule League, and fifteen 
 other gentlemen. 
 
 " The Organising Committee shall have all the powers of a 
 Central Council until the Council is elected, and no longer. 
 
 "THE IRISH NATIONAL LEACUE 
 "Rules fok Branches 
 
 I. 
 
 " Branches may bo formed in parishes in the country, and in 
 wards in the cities and towns ; and there sludl not be more than 
 one branch in any parish or ward, unless with the sanction of the 
 Central Council. 
 
XII ITS OBJECTS 301 
 
 II. 
 
 " I'^acli branch shall bo governed by a committee, which shall bo 
 elected annually, and shall consist of a president, treasurer, secretary, 
 and six other members. 
 
 III. 
 
 "The annual suljscription shall be at the rate of Is. for every £-5. 
 valuation, and in no case shall it be less than Is. or more than £1. 
 
 IV. 
 
 "The Treasurer of each branch shall forward 7-5 per cent of all 
 subscri])tions received, and the secretary shall forward a monthly 
 i'ci)()rt of the condition of his branch, and such other information as 
 the Central Council may desire. 
 
 V. 
 
 " The branches shall elect delegates to an annual county 
 convention as follows :— 
 
 " Branches of one hundred mcml)ers or under, one delegate, 
 and one for every additional hundred members, but no branch 
 shall be entitled to send more than five delegates. 
 
 VI. 
 
 " Credential cards for the delegates to county conventions shall 
 be forwarded to each branch by the Central Council. 
 
 VII. 
 
 "All elections shall be by ballot." 
 
 Your Lordships will have observed that tlie circular 
 proposed uniting on one central platform the various 
 movements that were then appealing to the country 
 for separate sanction and support. Those are pointed 
 at in the rules as being the Mansion-IIouse Committee 
 for the Relief of Evicted Tenants ; the Labour and 
 Industrial Union, and tlie Home Ivule League, a 
 body which was the continuation of the Home llule 
 movement started about 1870 by j\lr. Isaac Butt, as I 
 told your Lordships. 
 
302 THE NATIONAL LEAGUE xii 
 
 I ouglit to have mentioned, lest it should be sup- 
 posed I have omitted it, that at the same time tliat 
 the Arrears Act was passed another of the Coercion Acts, 
 as they are called, was passed, and I desire to mention 
 it because an attempt was made by the Attorney-General 
 to account for the improved condition of matters in 
 relation to crime by reference, not to the operation of 
 the Land Act of 1881, plus the operation of the Arrears 
 Act, but to the operation of that Grimes Act, or Goercion 
 Act. In answer to that I will only say in passing that 
 the experience under the previously existing Act, which 
 continued in operation through 1881 and part of 1882, 
 certainly does not support, but goes hxr to negative, the 
 suggestion advanced 1)y the Attorney-General. 
 
 My Lords, at the same time the following address 
 was presented to the Irish people, signed by Mr. Parnell, 
 as chairman, by Mr. Biggar and Mr. Molony, as treasurers, 
 ])y Mr. Healy and Mr. T. Harrington, as secretaries ; 
 the ora'anisino- committee beinii; Mr. Dawson, wlio was 
 afterwards f^ord Mayor of Dublin ; Mr. Sullivan, wlio 
 was also Lord Mayor ; Mr. John Kedmond, Mr. E. Leamy, 
 Mr. Sexton, Mr. Davitt, Mr. O'lirien, Mr. Matthew 
 Harris, Mr. Justice Little (a Canadian judge wlio had 
 retired but was living in Ireland), Mr. A. Shackleton, 
 Mr. George Delaney, Mr. Thomas Mayne, ]\lr. Clancy, 
 j\lr. Hishon, Mr. Sheeliy, Mr. Louis Smith, Mr. William 
 Abraham, Mr. John O'Connor, Mr. J. Cardiff, and Mr. 
 Richard Lawlor. The address is this : — 
 
 "ADDRESS OF THE IRISH NATIONAL LEAGUE TO THE 
 PEOPLE OF IRELAND 
 
 " Fellow-Countrymen — As the organising committee entrusted 
 by the National conference with tlie preliminary arrangements for 
 the organising of the Irish National League, we have the honour of 
 
XII ITS OBJECTS 303 
 
 submitting to you the accompanying rules for the formation and 
 guidance of branches. It is desirable that no time should be wasted 
 in ]iutting the resolutions of the conference in force. The necessity 
 of close organisation, for the jiurpose of concentrating and giving a 
 (b^linite direction to tlu; National energies, is univoi-sally felt. It 
 has been forced upon {)ublic attention l)y the encroachments u])on 
 ]>opular rights, which have been going on in all directions since the 
 power of luiion among the peo])le was relaxed. The landlord 
 cond)inatioii for the })urpose of breaking the spirit of the Irish 
 tenant, tlic dismay Avhich the ])resent scale of judicial rents has 
 created amongst a2>plicants to the Land Coiu-ts, and the confiscation 
 of tenants' [)rf)])erty that is being etl'ected wherever disorganisation 
 has crept it), render it more necessary noAv than ever that the Irish 
 tenantry should be re-united in vigilant and lawful association, for 
 the purj)ose of protecting themselves from injustice, and for seeking 
 that full measure of land law reform which alone can seciu'e thera 
 against the j)erils of halting legislation. From the farming classes 
 the desire for organised eli'ort has extended to the la1)ourers, whose 
 miscraltle condition has been so long disregarded, and to the 
 artisans, wlio see in the si)irit worked by a great National com- 
 bination a ])owcr Avhich can nourish our decaying native industries 
 Avith millions of money now annually drained away into foreign 
 markets. 
 
 "AVith all these incentives to organisation, the Irish National 
 League unites a programme of social and ]iolitical reform which Avill 
 giadualiy tiansfer all local ])ower and patronage from })rivileged 
 strangers into the hands of the })Cop]e, and so fortify them for the 
 work of National Self-Government, which is the inspiration of all 
 our struggles. The National conference has, with the most hearty 
 unanimity, embodied these jninciples in the programme of the Irish 
 National League. It remains for you noAv, in your various districts, 
 to give immediate and practical elTect to these resolutions, so that 
 from the formation of local branches, the League may be able to 
 jirocecd to the election for the Central Coiuicil, and may be able to 
 olVer to every section of the Irish jieople the })ower and protection 
 which organisation and disci})line alone can ensure. 
 
 " Charles S. Parnell, Chairman. 
 
 " Joseph G. Biggar, 1 ^, T. M. Healy, ) , 
 
 ..r ,^ .,- - Ircasurers. „^ n - Hon. Sees. 
 
 \\ . I . JNIuLONY, j T. Harrington, j 
 
304 
 
 OBJECTS OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE 
 
 " C. Dawson, 
 T. D. Sullivan, 
 J. E. Eedmond, 
 E. Leamy, 
 T. Sexton, 
 Michael Davitt, 
 
 " Organising Committee 
 Matt. IIaukis, David Shkkiiy, 
 
 Judge Liitle, 
 A. Shackleton, 
 George Delaney, 
 Thomas Mayne, 
 J. J. Clancy, 
 William O'Brien, D. J. Hishon, 
 
 " Offices, 39 Upper Sachnlle Street." 
 
 Louis Smith, 
 W. Abraham, 
 John O'Connor, 
 J. Cardiff, 
 R. Lawlor. 
 
 As your Lordsliips will see, the formation of that 
 body was of a strictly representative kind. It held 
 periodical conventions, conventions which for very many 
 years were illegal and against the law in Ireland, in fact 
 until within recent years, when the Conventions Act 
 was repealed. 
 
XIII. 
 
 GENERAL ELECTION, 1885 
 
 My liOi-ds, 1 puss over an intervening period and I Gcnorai 
 come to a most important event, I mean the election of 1535.'°"' 
 1885. There had been meanwhile passed in 1885 a 
 bill which applied to England as well as to Ireland, and 
 which for the first time enfranchised, in any full measure, 
 tJie Irish people. This event is important in many ways, 
 because up to 1885 a party or ministers, however anxious 
 to be just or generous in their consideration of Ireland 
 and of the measures which its condition required, had 
 no certain representative voice of the Irish people to 
 guide them. The Irish people had a majority, but not 
 much more tlian a majority. How was that ? This is 
 a fact which I know the great bulk of the people in this 
 country are ignorant of, and I should not be surprised 
 if it came upon your Lordships as a new statement ; but 
 even jn-evious to the Act of 1885 there had been a 
 remarkal)le disproportion of the electors in Ireland to 
 the population as compared either with Scotland 
 or with England. I will tell your Lordships what the 
 results were. The result in the previous state of English 
 things was this : that, tcaking l^oroughs and counties Franchise, 
 together, two men out of five in England had votes 
 previous to 1885, while only one in five in Ireland had 
 a vote for Tarliamentary purposes, and the state of the 
 
 X 
 
3o6 GENERAL ELECTION, iSSj xiii 
 
 municipal francliise was even in stronger and more 
 marked contrast than that rehiting to the Parliamentary 
 franchise. I will illustrate this by giving your Lordships 
 one or two cases, counties and boroughs. The eastern 
 division of Staffordshire, population 138,824 ; electors 
 11,275. County of Dublin, population 145,628 ; electors 
 4982. So that with a larger population in Dublin the 
 number of electors previous to 1885 was about a third 
 of those in tlie constituency of a nearly corresponding- 
 size. So, Northumberland, South Division, compared 
 with Limerick county ; Lancashire, North - eastern 
 Division, compared with the county of Mayo ; Yorkshire, 
 North Riding, compared with the county of Down. So 
 that taking those four counties respectively in England 
 and in Ireland, the figures stand thus : population of 
 the four English counties 728,881 ; electors previous to 
 1885, 53,421 ; total of the four Irish counties, population 
 754,042 ; electors 26,402. So that with a larger popula- 
 tion in those four Irish counties there are 26,402 A^oters, 
 as against 53,421 in the four English counties with a 
 somewhat smaller population. In the case of the 
 ]x)roughs also it is remarkable. Sheffield with a popula- 
 tion of 284,410, electors 43,350 ; Dublin with a popula- 
 tion of 273,282, electors 13,880, less than a third, 
 between a third and a fourth. So, Blackl)urn as 
 compared with Cork ; Chatham as compared with 
 Limerick ; Newcastle-on-Tyne as compared with Belfiist ; 
 Aylesbury as compared with Londonderry ; Berwick-on- 
 Tweed as compared with Kilkenny ; Brecon as compared 
 with New Ross. The results of those seven boroughs 
 in England as compared with the seven boroughs 
 in Ireland are these : total population 626,579, electorate 
 in England 95,150 ; in Ireland, the population 685,680; 
 electorate 44,311. Therefore there is, as your Lordships 
 
GENERAL ELECTION, 1SS3 307 
 
 see, a marked discrepancy ; and further, there were in 
 operation certain otlier causes, namely, a difference in the 
 registration laws, which, undoubtedly, prevented a larger 
 number getting on the register in Ireland, who otherwise 
 would have got on. Tliis was the difference of (jualifica- 
 tion. In England, in English l>oroughs, all rated house- 
 holders are entitled to vote, and it has been held that a 
 separate room, held separately, was a separate house 
 witliin the Act of 18G7, whicli did not apply to Ireland, 
 In Irisli l)oroughs, houses rated by Government valuation Franciiise 
 at over £4 equal to a rental of £8 in Ireland, and £12 
 in England, and occupiers of lodgings worth 4s. un- 
 furnished per week, or over, were entitled to vote. 
 I'hose are the two statements as regards the boroughs. 
 In tlic I^]nglish and Irish counties, the occupier's franchise 
 is nominally the same, that is to say, a £12 Govern- 
 ment A'aluation ; but from tlie different mode of valuing 
 ihe English as compared with the Irish counties, the 
 Engbsli counties have more tlian 1.^- times as many 
 voters in proportion to the population as the IrisJi 
 counties. All I desire to establish by this — I am 
 not arguing beyond this about it — is, that taking 
 tlie question of populations in the two countries, 
 and taking the franchises in the two countries, the pro- 
 portion of the electors for the English boroughs and 
 English counties was much greater to the total population 
 tlian in Ireland, either in boroughs or in counties. That 
 was set right by the Act of 1885 which came into 
 operation at tlie election wliicli took place in that year. 
 
 1 liave given one reason w^hy this is an important 
 event. It is an important event for another reason. 
 The case presented before your Lordships is this ; that 
 Ireland was groaning under a remorseless tyranny, first, 
 the tyranny of the Land League, next, tlie tyranny of 
 
3o8 GENERAL ELECTION, 18S5 xiii 
 
 the National League ; that it was not true to say that 
 either of those movements had behind it tlie sanction 
 and goodwill of the Irish people ; that it was, in fact, a 
 minority, using illegal means of intimidation, and of 
 influence, terrorising over a majority ; in other words, 
 it was not national, but it was a narrow, selfish, sectional 
 movement, instituted and controlled by a band of men 
 with more or less self-seeking motives, and no ol)jects 
 for the public good. 
 The My Lords, I think the results that I am now aoino- to 
 
 Elections. ti t i 1 • > • 1 i? 
 
 call your Lordships attention to are the most marvellous 
 that the political history of any country can afford ; for 
 until this election of 1885 there seem to have been others 
 who entertained the opinion which the Attorney-General 
 upon that matter was instructed to put forward. 1 
 have here a list of counties and of boroughs, numbering 
 fifty or more — I have not worked out the exact figures 
 — in which the majorities go as high as G474, and the 
 lowest majority is 2385. 
 
 But, my Lords, the majorities are not the force and 
 strength and point of this ; it is the miserable minorities. 
 I must trouble your Lordships with reading some of 
 these. Carlow county — majority, 4050 ; the vote on 
 one side, the popular side, being 4801, and the vote 
 on the minority being 751. 
 
 I do not know whether your Lordships know the 
 county of Carlow. It is a well-to-do county ; it has a 
 number of resident landlords in it and gentry well-to-do ; 
 and when you recollect, not merely that Mr. Parnell's 
 policy had drawn down upon it the condemnation 
 of all the landlord class, and all the dependants 
 of the landlord class, and of the class which represents 
 the actual officials of the executive power in Ireland, 
 it does seem amazing, unless this was indeed trulv 
 
GENERAL ELECTION, 18S3 
 
 309 
 
 a inovement which had behind it a popular force, 
 without any parallel that I know of, that they were only 
 able, as against 4801 votes, to get 751. 
 
 Cavaii, AVcst — majority, 4G46. Vote on the popular 
 side, G425 ; 1779 minority. 
 
 My Lords, I will read the popular vote first, the 
 minority vote next, and the majority next. I will not 
 trouble your Lordships with repeating myself, but will 
 just give the names and figures : — 
 
 County. 
 
 ro[)nlar 
 Vote. 
 
 Minority. 
 
 M.ijority. 
 
 East Clare ..... 
 West Clare .... 
 
 East Cork 
 
 Mid Cork ..... 
 
 6224 
 6763 
 4314 
 5033 
 
 289 
 289 
 266 
 106 
 
 5936 
 
 6474 
 4048 
 4927 
 
 Tliese, my Lords, are all contested elections. 
 
 County. 
 
 ro]iular 
 Vote. 
 
 Minority. 
 
 Majority. 
 
 North Cork .... 
 Soutli Cork .... 
 Soiitli-East Cork 
 West Cork 
 
 4982 
 4823 
 4620 
 3920 
 
 102 
 195 
 661 
 373 
 
 4880 
 4628 
 3959 
 3547 
 
 My Lords, I will not read, but I will ask leave to 
 put in, as part of the documents, the other figures in a 
 numl)er of otlier counties which show the same thing. 
 I have not made up the number. There are counties 
 and some boroughs also, but they exceed, speaking ofi"- 
 liand, 50. I will have the exact number made out, 
 and I believe I am right in saying that the lowest 
 majority in this enormous number of constituencies is 
 2385. 
 
3IO 
 
 GENERAL ELECTION, 1SS3 
 
 
 Constituencies. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Orange 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Jlajority. 
 
 Carlow County .... 
 
 4801 
 
 751 
 
 4050 
 
 Cavaii, West .... 
 
 6425 
 
 1779 
 
 4646 
 
 Clare, East .... 
 
 6224 
 
 289 
 
 5935 
 
 Clare, West .... 
 
 6763 
 
 289 
 
 6474 
 
 Cork, East .... 
 
 4314 
 
 266 
 
 4048 
 
 „ Mid .... 
 
 5033 
 
 106 
 
 4927 
 
 „ North .... 
 
 4982 
 
 102 
 
 4880 
 
 ,, South .... 
 
 4823 
 
 195 
 
 4628 
 
 „ South-East 
 
 4620 
 
 661 
 
 3959 
 
 „ West .... 
 
 3920 
 
 373 
 
 3547 
 
 „ City (undivided) 
 
 / 6682 
 \ 6497 
 
 1456 
 1392 
 
 5226 
 5105 
 
 Donegal, North .... 
 
 4597 
 
 962 
 
 3635 
 
 „ Soutli .... 
 
 5055 
 
 1369 
 
 3686 
 
 Dublin County, North 
 
 7560 
 
 1425 
 
 6135 
 
 Dublin City, Col. Green 
 
 6548 
 
 1518 
 
 5030 
 
 „ „ Harbour Division . 
 
 6717 
 
 1628 
 
 5089 
 
 „ „ St. Patrick's . 
 
 5330 
 
 1162 
 
 4168 
 
 Galway, East, County 
 
 4886 
 
 353 
 
 4513 
 
 „ City .... 
 
 1335 
 
 164 
 
 1171 
 
 Kerry, West .... 
 
 2607 
 
 262 
 
 2345 
 
 „ South .... 
 
 2742 
 
 133 
 
 2609 
 
 jj XjtlSu . . • . 
 
 3169 
 
 30 
 
 3139 
 
 Kildare, North .... 
 
 3169 
 
 467 
 
 2701 
 
 Kilkenny, North 
 
 4084 
 
 174 
 
 3910 
 
 „ South 
 
 4088 
 
 222 
 
 3166 
 
 King's County, Tullamore . 
 
 3700 
 
 323 
 
 3377 
 
 5, » Birr . 
 
 3408 
 
 760 
 
 2648 
 
 Leitrim, N(jrtli .... 
 
 4686 
 
 541 
 
 4145 
 
 „ South .... 
 
 4775 
 
 489 
 
 4286 
 
 Limerick, (^ity .... 
 
 3098 
 
 635 
 
 2463 
 
 Longford, North 
 
 2592 
 
 163 
 
 2422 
 
 „ South 
 
 3046 
 
 321 
 
 2725 
 
 Mayo, West .... 
 
 4790 
 
 131 
 
 4659 
 
 „ South .... 
 
 4900 
 
 75 
 
 4825 
 
 Monaghan, South 
 
 4375 
 
 963 
 
 3412 
 
 Queen's County, Leix . 
 
 3740 
 
 507 
 
 3233 
 
 „ Ossory . 
 
 3959 
 
 293 
 
 3666 
 
 Eoscommon, North . 
 
 6102 
 
 366 
 
 5736 
 
 „ South 
 
 6033 
 
 338 
 
 5695 
 
 Sligo, North .... 
 
 5216 
 
 772 
 
 4444 
 
 „ South .... 
 
 5150 
 
 541 
 
 4609 
 
 Tipperary, North 
 
 4789 
 
 252 
 
 4537 
 
GENERAL ELECTION, 1SS5 
 
 311 
 
 Constituencies. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Orange 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Majority. 
 
 Tipperarv, ]\fi(l .... 
 
 3805 
 
 255 
 
 3550 
 
 „ South 
 
 3572 
 
 122 
 
 3450 
 
 „ East. 
 
 40G4 
 
 196 
 
 3868 
 
 Waterford, West County 
 
 3746 
 
 359 
 
 3387 
 
 „ East County 
 
 3291 
 
 314 
 
 2977 
 
 City 
 
 2308 
 
 250 
 
 2058 
 
 Westmcath, North 
 
 3648 
 
 255 
 
 3393 
 
 „ Soutli 
 
 3618 
 
 200 
 
 3418 
 
 Wexford, North 
 
 6531 
 
 817 
 
 5714 
 
 Wicklow, AVost .... 
 
 3721 
 
 871 
 
 2850 
 
 East .... 
 
 3385 
 
 1000 
 
 2385 
 
 Then follows a second class, where the majorities 
 were not so large. But in all the majorities in those 
 cases, including several Ulster counties — Donegal, Fer- 
 managh North and South, Londonderry South, Monaghan 
 North, ]\rid Tyrone, East Tyrone, and South Tyrone — 
 the majority ranges from 1943 to 551, with one excep- 
 tion, and that is in Soutli Tyrone, where the contest was 
 very close, and the majority was 52. 
 
 Constituencies. 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 Orange 
 
 Nationalist 
 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Vote. 
 
 Majority. 
 
 Done.^al, East .... 
 
 4089 
 
 2992 
 
 1097 
 
 Dublin County, Soutli 
 
 5114 
 
 3736 
 
 1378 
 
 Dublin City, Stephen's Green 
 
 5277 
 
 3334 
 
 1943 
 
 Fernianagh, North 
 
 3255 
 
 2822 
 
 433 
 
 South 
 
 3574 
 
 2181 
 
 1393 
 
 Londonderry, South . 
 
 4723 
 
 4158 
 
 565 
 
 Monaghan, North 
 
 4055 
 
 2685 
 
 1370 
 
 Tyrone, Jlid .... 
 
 4299 
 
 2657 
 
 1642 
 
 „ East .... 
 
 3919 
 
 3368 
 
 551 
 
 „ South .... 
 
 3434 
 
 3382 
 
 52 
 
 I have given your Lordships these, wdiicli are the uncon- 
 conteated elections. There are, besides these, a number Elections 
 of uncontested elections. 
 
312 GENERAL ELECTION, 1SS5 xiii 
 
 Now, my Lords, what is to l)e said al)out this? 
 There is an Act which rehites to Ireland as well as to 
 this country, by which if there have been in operation 
 intimidation, violence, bribery, a popular election can l)e 
 questioned and set at nought if the case is established. 
 I am not sure whether my observation applies to this 
 1885 election or to the 1886 one, but to whichever it 
 Election applics, for my purpose, it matters not. There were 
 two petitions out of the whole of the elections. One of 
 them a petition against Mr. Sexton, in Belftist, which 
 was decided in his favour ; the other at the instance of 
 a popular member, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, in the city 
 of Londonderry, decided in his favour. There is 
 not the least ground for suggesting, and it cannot be 
 suggested, that these elections were anything else than 
 the free unljiassed opinion of the Irish people, exercising, 
 as the constitution intended they should exercise, their 
 right to the franchise by selecting men, not to please 
 English opinion or the opinion of the House of Commons, 
 or of any section or class of the community, l)ut to 
 exercise the franchise on the true constitutional principle 
 of selecting men to represent them, and this they did 
 freely, and with the force to which I have called your 
 Lordships' attention, I do say that this affords a clue 
 to the chano-e which was comino- over the minds of 
 thoughtful men and statesmen ; a clue to the attitude 
 which Lord Carnarvon, as I have already told your 
 Lordships, assumed ; a clue to that broader scheme 
 which has been called the policy of conciliation, 
 which a greater man still inaugurated, and sought to 
 make successful. And I do say, with great deference to 
 each of your Lordships, that it would be a thousand 
 times better if popular opinion in Ireland or in any other 
 country, represented with the force and volume shown 
 
GENERAL ELECTION, 1SS3 313 
 
 in these elections, a thousand times better, if that voice 
 was to ])c disregarded, that the power of representation 
 shouki be taken away altogether, and that Ireland, or 
 any other country similarly situated and similarly 
 treated, should be governed as a Crown colony, and 
 without a constitution at all. That is the thing, that is 
 tlie fact, tlh'it is the point upon which the whole Irish con- 
 troversy turns. As Bentham, in his Theor]i of Legis- 
 laiioii, in ellect says : " If associations spring up in a 
 country powerful enough to intimidate its government 
 with all its executive forces at its back, and with all its 
 influence, and too powerful to l)e put down — if and when 
 a great majority of the nation is seen on one side and its 
 government on another — it is a prett}^ clear indication 
 that the general discontent of that country is well 
 founded." 
 
XIV. 
 
 COWPER COMMISSION 
 
 I HAVE said tliere was trouble brewino- from the 
 operation of causes grievously felt in this country, 
 grievously felt in Ireland, and causes at least which 
 no one has attributed to the action of the Land 
 Fall ill League or National League. Those remarkable causes 
 arose from the almost unprecedented fall of agricultural 
 values to which I have already referred. 
 
 IMy Lords, again the Irish members foresaw the difH- 
 culty that was coming, and again in the autumn of 1886, 
 Mr. Parnell introduced a bill for the purpose of meeting 
 and coping with the inevitaljle coming crisis. That Ijill 
 did not succeed. History was repeating itself, as it was 
 constantly repeating itself in this matter. His policy, 
 rejected in 1886, was taken up, and adopted reluctantly, 
 by the Government in 1887 — again tardily, again in- 
 completely, but taken up. But before that was done, 
 one of the innumerable Commissions that have inquired 
 into the ills of Ireland was started. This time it was a 
 cowper commission known by the name of the Cowper Com- 
 sioD, 1886. mission, because of the name of the noble Lord which 
 was at its head. On that Commission there was a 
 representative of the Irish farmers — the only Commission 
 of which, I think, the same can be said. He was Mr. 
 Thomas Knipe, a Presbyterian farmer from Ulster ; and 
 
XIV COWPER COMMISSION 315 
 
 the otlier members of the Commission were Lord Cowper; 
 Lord JMilltown, an Lisli landlord ; Sir James Caird ; Mr. 
 Neligan, a county court judge in L-eland, and also a 
 landlord. Tlie majority passed a report blaming the 
 action of the National League, reflecting on the action 
 of the National League, but insisting upon the necessity 
 of dealing with the abnormal fall that had taken place; 
 and tliey arrived at the conclusion that rents fixed in 
 1881, 1883, 1884, and 1885 were not rents which 
 honest tenants could be asked to pay, or could reasonal)ly 
 1)c expected to pay, in the events which happened. The 
 Act was passed in 1887 — that automatic principle, if I 
 may so (%all it, that self-acting principle which Mr. 
 Parnell sought to have introduced into the Act of 1881, 
 in order that there might be instant relief felt all over 
 the country, was in a modified form introduced into that 
 Act, the Act of the present Government in 1887. 
 
 My Lords, in that Commission, Lord JMilltown, who 
 was the principal Irish landlord upon it, disagrees with 
 tlie majorit}^ in the report, and during the examination 
 of the witnesses plays the part of cross-examiner — I am 
 not of course blanung him for that — with a view to 
 defending his class, and with a view, I think occasion- 
 ally a little unfairly, to fixing odium on the Land 
 League. 
 
 The report of Mr. Knipe consists of two parts. Report of 
 First, he wrote a note when the ])reliminary report of '^' ^"'^*^' 
 tlie commissioners was directed to be published, in which 
 he, on the 15tli February 1887, arrives at the conclusion 
 that he could not concur in the report, and he adds this 
 important sentence : — 
 
 " Upon the question of combination, however, my views differ 
 soAvidely from the opinions of many of the commissioners that I am 
 compelled to dissent ; especially as assent on my part to certain 
 
3i6 COJVPER COMMISSION 
 
 paragraphs might create the impression that I am in favour of any 
 fresh coercive legislation. I know the feelings of the class I re- 
 present, and believe that combinations derive their force mainly 
 from the exactions of excessive rents Avhich the land does not pro- 
 duce. For these reasons I have come to the conclusion to embody 
 my own views in an independent report." 
 
 And this is his report. I do not propose totroul)le 
 your Lordships with the whole of it. The part I do 
 desire to read is the part headed " Coercive Legishation 
 and Combination." He says : — 
 
 " I think that any attempt to meet agrarian crime and outrage, 
 which unfortunately prevail in certain districts, by any fresh coercive 
 legislation will now, as in the past, not only fail to secure the 
 tranquillit}'' of the country, but will inevitably end in seriousl}' 
 aggravating the present difficulties. If the relations which now 
 unhappily exist between landlord and tenant are further strained, 
 the intentions of the Land Purchase Act will be defeated and sales 
 of land to tenants even at lower price will be rendered more 
 difficult in many parts of Ireland. The landlords, with a few 
 honourable exceptions, have failed to meet by prompt reduction of 
 rent the serious fall in prices, or to recognise the serious losses of 
 their tenants, and to this may be attributed combinations and the 
 resistance to evictions Avhich has taken place, and which might have 
 been averted. If the power of the League is to be weakened and 
 the people kept away from combinations Avhich are certain to spread 
 beyond their present limited area, and thereby endanger further 
 the peace of the country, it can only be by the Covermnent boldly 
 facing, as a whole, the Land Question in Ireland, and by such legis- 
 lation and government as will convince the poorest of the people 
 that the law is their defender and friend." 
 
 I ought to exphiin to your Lordships that, when 
 Mr. Knipe alludes to combinations which are certain to 
 spread beyond their present limited area, he does not 
 refer to the National League, lie refers — I think it 
 better to explain this for another reason — to a proceed- 
 ing, not resorted to by the National League, thougli 
 undoubtedly certain members of the National League 
 
S//^ R. nULLER 317 
 
 were })roiniiient in instituting it, which was known by 
 the name of the Phin of Campaign, but whicli my 
 learned friends, after considering the matter, I presume, 
 amongst tliem, and in view of assurances given in Par- 
 liament when this very Act, under wliicJi your Lordships 
 are sitting, was under discussion, have not gone into, and 
 1, of course, do not propose to do so. 
 
 lie then goes on to make a reference to the evidence 
 of Sir Ivcdvers Buller, and I shall read to your Lord- 
 ships his evidence in a moment. He was a witness who 
 could certainly have told your Lordsliips a great deal 
 about the county wliere crime has perhaps on the whole 
 been the worst, or at least where there have been a 
 larger number of crimes, I mean the county of Kerry. 
 Mr. Kni])e goes on to say :— 
 
 "1 venture to say it would be a serious matter, with grievances 
 unredressed, to attempt to suppress by force or fresh coercive legis- 
 lation the right of tenants openly to associate for the protection 
 of their interests; a class to whose property the State up to 1881 
 refused any real legal protection." 
 
 Now, my Lords, this volume (" Cowper Commission ") sirRedvers 
 contains much useful matter. I propose to read to your Evidence. 
 Lordsliips, and to read it from the beginning to the end, 
 the evidence of Sir Redvers Buller. 
 
 (The President) I doubt whether this is admissible, 
 Sir Charles. You see these various documents from which 
 you are reading are not admissible as statements of fact 
 for this purpose, if it were necessary to call witnesses, 
 but of course I am not for a moment limiting your 
 general right to refer to documents of this kind. I do 
 not thinlv it can be taken that the whole bulk of the 
 evidence of the witnesses given before that Commission 
 can l)e treated as evidence here. 
 
 (Sir ( '. Russell) I at once defer, of course, to your 
 
3i8 ■ COWPER COMMISSION xi 
 
 Lordship's view. There was one point which your Lord- 
 ship has been good enough to recollect, and I think it 
 was a common arrangement at which we arrived, that 
 all official documents were practically to be treated as 
 put in ; and we certainly upon that basis, and upon that 
 understanding, have allowed a number of documents to 
 be put in — nay, a number of statements to be made — 
 which in a strict sense would not be admissil)le in 
 evidence at all. And we conceived we were acting 
 within the principle of that understanding by referring 
 to the documents which I have mentioned, but I can 
 at once see there is a distinction. I cj^uite recognise 
 what your Lordship means, that there is a difference 
 between the evidence of a witness and a report of a body 
 like the commissioners. I quite see that there is, and I 
 will at once, therefore, defer to your Lordship's view. 
 
 (The President) You, I am sure, must have observed 
 that I have not checked you at all in the various passages 
 you have read, and if there is anything of a striking 
 character which you wish to call our attention to, not in 
 the nature of a statement of fact, but something you 
 might embody in your speech, to which you seek to give 
 additional force by stating, we should not object. 
 
 (Sir C Kussell) The way I proposed to use it was rather 
 this — and having once presented it to the mind of the 
 Court I at once defer to whatever view is taken. We, re- 
 presenting the accused here, asked a number of witnesses 
 as to whether they attributed such and such things to 
 the League, and notably, in some cases, to which I shall 
 have to call detailed attention, they were allowed to 
 give statements, second and third and fourth hand some- 
 times, as to the ground of these conclusions and opinions. 
 I was going to use this evidence of Sir Redvers Buller 
 for the purpose of showing what view an honest man in 
 
SIR R. BULLER 319 
 
 liis position and with his independence of judgment 
 would take of the state of things which existed in the 
 county of Keny at this very time in relation to which 
 your Lordsliips arc inquiring. lie wns, my Lords, besides, 
 Irish Under-Secretary at the very time he was giving 
 this evidence before the Commission, or he was appointed 
 very soon after, because he gives his evidence at the end 
 of 188G, and in ]\larcli 1887 Mr. Knipc refers to his 
 evidence as that of tlie Under-Secretary when asked 
 before the Commissioners certain questions. 
 
 I do not, however, desire to press this at all ; but 1 
 shall be justified in reading the passage from the evidence 
 which the Commissioner embodied in his report : — 
 
 "The Under-Secretary when asked before the Commission — SirRedvers 
 
 Buller's 
 Evidence. 
 
 Q. 16,t73. 'Would it meet j^our idea, if when an ejectment was 
 
 brouglit into the conrt, the judge of that court would have the 
 discretion of saying whether he Avould evict or not ? ' replied, ' Yes, 
 that is what I want. It seems to me that it should be his duty to 
 exercise a certain degree of discretion, but he only exercises it when 
 the tenant comes into court. Unfortunately, the tenants have been 
 taught that the law is only on one side.' Again, Q. 16,474-5. 'I 
 see some vciy hard cases. Hard cases of men being pressed for 
 rents that they could not pay. I wrote to a landlord the other day 
 who was about to turn out a man. That man i)aid a yenr's rent, and 
 he owed three — he was evicted, and that man, I believe, really 
 meant to pay the amount. He was evicted. I satisfied myself 
 that if he got time he was going to i)ay his rent when his children, 
 who were in service in Limerick, sent their wages to him.' And 
 Q. 16,476. 'I think that tliere should be a discretion in givin"- 
 decrees, and that there should be some means of modifying and 
 redressing the grievances of rents being still higher than the jjeople 
 can pay. You have got a very ignorant, poor people, and the law 
 should look after them, instead of which it has only looked after 
 the rich ; that ajipcars to me to be the case on coming here.' Also 
 Q. 16,468. 'I feel very strongly that in this part of the country 
 you can never have peace unless you create some legal equipoise 
 or legal equivalent that Avill supply the want of freedom of contract 
 
320 cow PER COMMISSION xiv 
 
 that now exists between the landlord and the tenant. I think there 
 should be some legal machinery which should give the tenant an 
 equivalent for the pressure that the landlord is able to put on him 
 owing to his love of the land.' " 
 
 My Lords, he finally uses this extraordinary language 
 in his evidence. 
 
 He is asked at Q. 16,493 : — 
 
 " ' Is there any general sympathy with the action of the League 
 on the part of the people V (A.) ' Yes, I think so ; they pay to it. 
 I think there is sympathy, because they think that it has been their 
 salvation.' Q. 21 6,494. ' It has been their salvation ? ' — ' The bulk 
 of the tenants in this west part of Ireland tell me of rents that 
 have been reduced, and evictions that have been stayed, which are 
 directly due to the operations of the League. They believe that, 
 whatever truth there may be in it, nobody did anything for tlie 
 tenants until the League was established, and when the landlords 
 could not let their farms, then they were forced to consider the 
 question of rent. There are in this district of Killarne}^ 1G80 
 acres of derelict farms on which the grass has grown up and 
 rotted this year, and 950 acres of farms from which the tenants 
 having been evicted have been allowed to remain in as caretakers.' 
 Q. 216,495. ' They have been kept derelict, but you do not think 
 that desirable % ' — ' No, most undesirable. It is an enormous loss to 
 the country, but it is because it does not pay to turn a tenant out, 
 the tenant is not turned out.' Q. 216,496. ' The result is that it is 
 no longer possible to enforce legal obligations ] ' — ' Yes.' Q. 216,497. 
 'Well, that hardly looks as if the law was all for the rich.' — 'The 
 law — there is not much law in this part of the country, but a short 
 time ago what law there was, was really on the side of tlie rich.' " 
 
 My Lords, I shall adopt this statement as my own, 
 and, I hope, support it by evidence which will recommend 
 it to your Lordships' mind. I only regret I have not been 
 able to read the whole of the evidence. I have said 
 fairly to your Lordships that he points to the action of in- 
 timidation, not to the League, although he uses the word 
 League, but — as the date shows, and there are certain 
 matters which earmark it — to the Plan of Campaign. 
 
Sm R. DULLER 
 
 321 
 
 1 come now, I am glad to say, to the end of this narra- 
 tive, as far as Land LegisLation is concerned, and I shall 
 make no further reference to it. Following that report, 
 there was carried out — -very imperfectly carried out — 
 still carried out in a, way to afford some relief to the 
 tenants, the Bill which Mr. Parnell prepared in the 
 previous session, 188G. That was done by the Govern- 
 ment of the day in 1887. 
 
XV. 
 REDUCJIONS IN THE LAND COURT 
 
 Land My Lorcls, I clo not recede from wliat I have said, 
 1881^87, that beginning with 1881, and ending with 1887, real, 
 */rish°*^'^ substantial progress has been made in the protection of 
 Leaders. ^]jg Ingji tenant class, a protection that, if it had been 
 afforded them, ay, at the date of the Devon Commis- 
 sion in 1843-45, would, I have not the slightest doubt, 
 have changed the whole face of the country. There 
 would have remained unquestionably the strictly poli- 
 tical questions. They would have l)een modified — I 
 mean their treatment would have been modified, and 
 the mode in which they were pressed u|)on public atten- 
 tion would have been modified, and the whole tone and 
 temper of the people would have been different from 
 that which developed itself, owing to the neglect of 
 land legislation up to 1880. 
 
 My Lords, Mr. Parnell and ]\Tr. Parnell's colleagues 
 do not claim and have not claimed the whole credit for 
 this change. They gladly recognise the growing intel- 
 ligence and information upon this Irish question in the 
 public mind of England as well as of Scotland ; they 
 gladly recognise the help they have received from at 
 least one party, and from members of another party. 
 They gladly recognise, most of all, the efforts that have 
 been made by one, to whom I need not further allude, 
 
XV REDUCTIONS IN THE LAND COURT 323 
 
 without wliom the k\gishition of 1881 woukl have been 
 impossil)le, in view of the liostile opposition springing 
 from chiss interests and prejudice. But am I not justi- 
 fied in saying tliat it is due to the Irish leaders, to the 
 Irish people, that they have awakened the conscience of 
 EngLand in this matter ; that they have arrested the 
 attention of England in this matter ; that they have 
 informed the mind of England on this matter ? And, my 
 Lords, for their beneficial work in that regard practi- 
 cally, they are arraigned before your Lordships to-day. 
 I do not claim for them, in all their acts, in all their 
 speeches, conspicuous wisdom. It may l)e that they 
 have said foolish things ; they may not have done the 
 wisest thing at the right moment ; but I say, in the 
 broad outline of their action and of their policy, they 
 have vindicated themselves before the world and before 
 any intelligent tribunal which addresses its mind to the 
 consideration of tkeir position and of their conduct. 
 
 Before I leave tliis matter I should like to present to 
 your Lordships, in a concrete form, a specimen or two 
 of what this all means. What would a reduction in the 
 Land Court mean with the Irish people ? And, first of 
 nil, let me tell your Lordships, working out carefully the 
 figures in each year, what the percentage of reductions 
 has been. The average reduction for — 
 
 18SI-S2 is 20-5 i^er cent. 
 1882-8.3 is 19-6 per cent. 
 188.3-84 is 18-9 per cent. 
 1884-85 is 18-2 per cent. 
 1885-8G is 24 percent. 
 1886-87 is 31-1 per cent. 
 
 Thus the average reductions over the vears 1881 
 to 1885 inclusive is 19 '4 per cent, and over the years 
 1886-87, 31-3 per cent. Taking the figures from the 
 
324 
 
 REDUCTIONS IN THE LAND COURT 
 
 same volume, I should like to present to your Lordships 
 some more cases of reductions in the case of landlords, 
 known as " good " landlords, as contrasted with some 
 known by a different description. These cases are 
 selected indiscriminately from the volumes published by 
 the Land Commission, and when I speak of a " good " 
 landlord I wish your Lordships to understand tliat a 
 good landlord, according to the L*ish acceptation of the 
 word, does not mean merely a landlord who is consider- 
 ate in the matter of rent, but means a landlord who 
 takes some interest in the condition of his people, and 
 who shows some sympathy with them. And I am glad 
 to give as an instance of a " good " landlord a member 
 of the present Parliament, sitting on tlie same side of 
 the House on which the Attorney-General sits ; I mean 
 Mr. A. H. Mr. A. H. Smith Barry, the member of Parliament, and 
 Barry. I will givc your Lordslups some figures taken indis- 
 criminately from his cases. 
 
 OKI Rent. Judicial Rei 
 
 t. 
 
 £ .-. d. 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 10 4 10 Red need to 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 32 „ 
 
 25 
 
 
 
 () 
 
 123 15 8 
 
 100 
 
 
 
 
 
 GO 
 
 4G 
 
 
 
 
 
 40 „ 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 
 
 19 2 10 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 47 6 G 
 
 37 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 15 
 
 12 
 
 
 
 
 
 4G 11 
 
 3G 
 
 
 
 
 
 These, my Lords, are what the Land Court decided 
 to be the rethictions in 1881 and 1882, and your Lord- 
 ships see, even in the case of a man who compara- 
 tively is described as a good landlord, how serious those 
 reductions are. 
 
DEDUCTIONS IN THE LAND COURT 
 
 P5 
 
 Tliere is another of the same class, Air. George E. ]\ir. ({. e. 
 J^rowiie, formerly M.P. for the county of Mayo, and ^''"'""'■ 
 these also arc 1881-82 : — 
 
 Old Rent. 
 
 Judicial Rent. 
 
 £ .■;. d. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 .s. 
 
 d. 
 
 7 
 
 Ilf^duced to 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 () IG 
 
 
 4 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 7 5 
 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 33 
 
 
 . 24 
 
 
 
 
 
 8 IG 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 
 
 4 8 
 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
 . 13 
 
 
 
 
 
 13 10 
 
 
 . 10 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 and so on. I do not tliink that I should desire to 
 (roulde your Lordships with the full details of tlie 
 (igui'cs. 
 
 Another case is the Marquis of Londonderry. This Maiviuis 
 also is in 1881 to 1882. He is considered a good land- .lerry"' '^"" 
 lord. 
 
 Old Rent. 
 
 Judicial Rent. 
 
 £ ?. d. 
 
 
 £ s. 
 
 d. 
 
 35 14 G 
 
 Reduced to 
 
 25 11 
 
 1 
 
 G4 16 
 
 ?> 
 
 50 
 
 
 
 11 14 
 
 ?) 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 44 5 G 
 
 
 33 17 
 
 3 
 
 21 14 
 
 ?j 
 
 12 11 
 
 9 
 
 38 4 
 
 5) 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 17 12 G 
 
 )) 
 
 13 8 
 
 2 
 
 22 1 
 
 >) 
 
 14 IG 
 
 
 
 32 3 G 
 
 )) 
 
 2G 9 
 
 4 
 
 35 10 
 
 V 
 
 27 
 
 
 
 39 18 G 
 
 >» 
 
 30 15 
 
 2 
 
 18 15 G 
 
 » 
 
 11 12 
 
 6 
 
 GO 18 G 
 
 5) 
 
 42 18 
 
 11 
 
 13 8 
 
 J) 
 
 9 7 
 
 G 
 
326 
 
 REDUCTIONS IN THE LAND COURT 
 
 Another man, who, I believe, is entitled to the name 
 of being a good landlord, comparatively speaking, is 
 Lord Fitz- Loi'd FitzwilHam. 
 
 William. 
 
 Mr. 
 
 William 
 
 Robb. 
 
 Old Rent. 
 
 Jiuliciiil 1 
 
 iuiit» 
 
 
 
 £ s. <?. 
 
 
 £ 
 
 s. 
 
 (/. 
 
 24 
 
 Reduced to 
 
 . 20 
 
 
 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 . 14 
 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 )) 
 
 . 10 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 25 10 
 
 !) 
 
 . 19 
 
 
 
 
 
 22 
 
 )) 
 
 . 17 
 
 
 
 . 
 
 And here is one instance of an Ulster landlord ; the 
 rents are small. It is the estate of Mr. William Robb. 
 
 Old Rent. 
 
 Judicial Ren 
 
 t. 
 
 
 
 £ .-. d. 
 
 
 X 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 5 1 
 
 Reduced to 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 4 10 
 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 6 15 
 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 2 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 GOO 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 6 10 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 26 18 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 
 
 
 112 6 
 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 3 10 
 
 
 1 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 7 
 
 
 2 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 Now, my Lords, I have also got other fignres here, 
 but I do not desire to give the names, and I do not even 
 desire to go into them, but as compared with those I am 
 told, and I believe correctly told, Mr. Browne, Mr, Smith 
 Barry, Lord Londonderry, Lord Fitzwilliam, are good, 
 fair specimens, and even better than fair specimens, of 
 landlords, and are regarded in Ireland as on the whole 
 considerate, and not bad landlords. Your Lordshijjs will 
 
REDUCTIONS IN THE lAND COURT 327 
 
 understand I am prepared to do so, but I do not desire to 
 mention the names. I liave them liere if your Lord- 
 slii[)s wisli for them, but you may understand that when 
 J liavc selected men of tlic position of tliose whom I 
 have mentioned — Mr. Smith Barry, at present a member 
 for liis county ; Mr. Browne, ex-member for his county of 
 Mayo; T^ord Londonderry; and Lord Fitzwilliam — witli 
 the resuhs I have shown, your Lordships will judge for 
 yourselves what an array of figures one may pick and 
 choose if one were to take the worst cases that mishtlje 
 presented for the consideration of the court. 
 
 And, my Lords, what does this story of reductions 
 menu, whether you are to take the lesser cases I have 
 presented, or the much stronger cases which, if I were 
 to select them, I could present ? It means that these 
 men, having no real independence and freedom of con- 
 tract, had (A'cr weary years, God knows how far back, 
 and their fathers before them, been trying to pay rents, 
 rents going up in proportion as they improved their hold- 
 ings, but rents which the land was not making, and 
 which wei'c not leaving them any fair return for their 
 expenditure and labour and such small capital as they 
 possessed. And I ask any honest man, can he deny the 
 truth of tliis ; that they had not any expectation of 
 relief, until they banded themselves in combination for 
 mutual protection, the strong and the weak together, and 
 until, under the guidance and inspiration of their leaders, 
 Avhom they trusted, they arrested public attention and 
 fixed it upon what was a grievous scandal and a crying 
 injustice. 
 
XVI. 
 EXAMINATION OF "THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 
 
 Now, my Lords, I am glad to say I have left entirely, 
 and, I hope, not to recur to it again, the question of hind. 
 Tiie Evi- I now come to the question of the evidence which has 
 
 *TheViiiies. been presented before you with the view of endeavouring 
 to connect those who are here charged with complicity 
 in crime and outrag-e and I would like at this sta^e 
 to explain the course which I propose to take in this 
 examination. I propose to devote a few moments to the 
 evidence of o|)iiiion — for that pra(;tically was what, it 
 came to — of magistrates and district inspectors. We 
 propose hereafter to ofter to your Lordships similar 
 evidence by persons, as we conceive, better entitled 
 to speak, who will tell your Lordships that they 
 believe, that if it had not been for the hope which the 
 action of the Land League inspired, and for the control 
 and moderating influence which it exercised, the crime 
 in L'cland, as disclosed over these ten years, Avould have 
 been much more striking. But 1 would remind your 
 Lordships in this connection that your Lordsliips have 
 had, so to speak, focussed and presented in that fashion, 
 crime extending over the whole period of ten years of 
 what I have said amounted, not to agitation only, but 
 to revolution. The Attorney-General in opening the 
 case dwelt strongly on the connection, which he thought 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF " THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE 329 
 
 — as 1 presume he was instructed — he would be able to 
 estal)lish, between the naming of persons in speeches, 
 which he called denunciations, and the naming of 
 persons in resolutions of tlie Land League, and subse- 
 quent outrages ; and before I proceed to consider the 
 evidence of the magistrates I wish to call your Lord- 
 ships' attention to some striking figures in this regard. 
 
 ILavins: examined the evidence of the magistrates, I 
 next i)ropose to consider the general evidence as it re- 
 lates to the four counties of Galway, Mayo, Kerry, and 
 part of Cork, to examine that very generally, and to 
 classify the cases which have arisen in those four counties, 
 in a way that I hope will give your Lordships some 
 assistance in the consideration of that branch of the case, 
 reserving a fuller and detailed examination of that part 
 of tlie evidence till a later })eriod, when your Lordships 
 can have it more adequately and better discussed in view 
 of any further evidence which we propose to put before 
 you. M}^ learned friend ]\Ir. Reid lias given enormous 
 pains and labour to the classification of that evidence, 
 and, indeed, has made a, comj)lete digest of the body of 
 the evidence itself. 
 
 I then propose to consider, and consider fully, the 
 murders ; and lastly the evidence, as far as it can be 
 said to a2)ply to any of the members of Parliament who 
 are before you. 
 
 Therefore, the order Avill be — the magistrates, the 
 crimes in the four counties generally, apart from 
 murders, the examination in greater or less detail of 
 the murders, and finally the evidence, as it is supposed 
 to point to complicity in any of the members of Parlia- 
 ment. 
 
 Now, my Ijords, first of all as regards the connection "Naming" 
 between the " naming," or as the Attorney-General has '" ' i'^*^'^ '^'^ 
 
330 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 called it, the denunciation, of persons at meetinos. 
 In the speeches read by the Attorney-General in his 
 opening, there were ^1 persons — I will use for the 
 moment a neutral word — whose conduct was reprehended 
 or who were referred to at public meetings. I can give 
 your Lordships the names : — 
 
 " Bodkin, M'Hugh, Seymour, Murty Hynes, Persse of Koxboro', 
 the Persses of Gahvay, Burton Persse, Murray IM'Grregor, Bouike of 
 Ower, Broune of Larne, Hacket, Bottrell, Pat Davis, John Tally, 
 Keane, Keating, J. Casey, R. Henry of Togher, D. B. Leonard, 
 Isidore Burke, Walter Bhike, Kennedy liohinson, Mrs. Forbes, 
 Mrs. Blake of Renvyle, Mr. Leonard of Tuam, Hussey, John W. 
 O'Connor, Lansdowne, Trench, Kenmare, M'Gillicuddy, Herbert, 
 Boycott, Bence Jones, William Hartlett, Broun, David Ijoiuke, 
 Walter Burke of Curraleigh, Carter, Hayes, Cornelius O'Connor, 
 Carty, Mr. Hamilton Brien, Hegarty, Lord Bantry, Mr. Bird, ]\li-. 
 Barrett, Daly, Lord Annaly, ]\Latt Weld O'Connor, Col. Kiiig- 
 Harman, Lord Clanricarde, Lord Kenmare, Marcus Keane, Stack- 
 pool, Maurice O'Halloran, Stackpoole Malion, Tare, Daly, O'Connor, 
 Balaclava Finlay, Clai'k, M'Donagh, Lewis, Downey, Sandcs, and 
 Headleys." 
 
 Of those, as to 60 there is not, as far as I am aware — if 
 I am wrong it will be pointed out — one single atom of 
 evidence before your Lordships showing that any crime 
 or outrage followed upon any reference made to them. 
 For the remaining seven undoubtedly there is evidence 
 that they were subjected to outrage ; and three of the 
 seven cases, 1 am sorry to say, were cases of murder. 
 But when I come to examine, as I shall under the head 
 of murder, the alleged connection between their naming 
 and the outrage which followed upon them, 1 thinlv I 
 shall satisfy your Lordships that there is no tangible, 
 real ground for saying, that between the naming, or 
 reference, or animadversion, and the outrages, looking 
 to all the circumstances, and looking particularly to the 
 dates, there is the connection of cause and effect. 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF THE ''TIMES'' EVIDENCE 331 
 
 Now, my Lords, I proceed to some general observa- 
 tions — for 1 do not propose to give more — on the evi- 
 dence of the magistrates and the district inspectors. 1 ]\ragistrates 
 take a typical case, for I do not propose to examine them inspeito™. 
 all — Captain Plunkett ; and I examine his evidence for 
 the purpose of showing that while he, like all these official 
 witnesses, is full of suspicion, yet when he is pressed to 
 give solid grounds for his opinion, he really fails to give 
 them. I was not here when he was examined ; he was 
 cross-examined by my friend Mr. Reid, and your Lord- 
 shi[)S will particularly take a note of his cross-examina- 
 tion at })age 2005, and then you will see what the kernel 
 of his evidence is. lie says :— 
 
 " I came to the conclusion that the League was the cause of Captain 
 crime, because where the League Avas Aveak, there was not much Pl'^"'^ett. 
 crime ; where the League was strong, there was much crime." 
 
 Pressed to say how he arrived at the conclusion that in 
 any particular })lace the League was weak, or in any other 
 ])articular place the League was strong, his answer is : 
 " Because in one place there was crime, and because in 
 the other place there was not crime," so that his argu- 
 ment is completely in a circle in the expression of his 
 views. At Question 37,575, page 2005, he is asked by 
 my friend ]\Ir. lleid :— 
 
 " Will you give mc the facts upon Avhich you rely for the pur- 
 pose of showing the branches were weak in the three districts you 
 have said were quiet, and were strong, for example, in Castleisland % 
 Give mo the facts." 
 
 'I'lie answer is : — 
 
 " What I rely on is that in the three districts, wherever there 
 has been a branch established which had any vitality, crime invari- 
 ably folloAved, and in the three districts named there was little or 
 no crime up to the time I speak of. (Q.) And therefore you infer 
 that the Laud Leafrue was weak in those three districts and strong 
 
332 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 in the other? (A.) In which? (Q.) Strong in CastleisIiUuH (A.) 
 Yes. (Q.) That is your reason ? (A.) Tliat is one of them. (C^).) 
 Of course you have more. I want to take them one hy one \ l)ut 
 that is your reason % (A.) Yes. (Q.) Now, will you give me 
 another % (A.) Yes ; the other has been received from private 
 information. (Q.) About the strength and weakness of the difi'erent 
 branches % (A.) About the action of the diflerent branches, ((-i.) 1 
 will ask you about the action in a moment. I am asking you your 
 ground for saying that the Land League was strong in the one and 
 weak in the other. Do you see? (A.) Yes. (Q.) You have given 
 me one reason in answer to that. What is the other ? (A.) The 
 other was that whenever they thought fit to denounce a man he 
 invariably suffered, and that showed their strength." 
 
 This gentleman, I do not doubt, speaks lionestly 
 enough ; but, I may remind your Lordsliips just as the 
 official witnesses of the same class in the 1852 Com- 
 mission, whose evidence I called attention to, when in- 
 quiring into the state of Armagh, Monaghan, and Louth, 
 all said the same thing (they all said the Land Question 
 had really nothing to do with it ; that it was the 
 agitators of that day that created the disturbance), so 
 they say here ; but when you come to press Captain 
 Plunkett, the result is that all he has to say is he arrives 
 at the conclusion that the Land League was weak in one 
 district because there was less crime, and strong in 
 another district because there was more crime ; but as 
 regards any tangible ground for forming that opinion, 
 except the allusion he makes to private information, 
 about which I will say a word in a moment, there is 
 Privcate In- nonc. What is that private information ? Luckily for 
 the interests of justice and truth we have had one or 
 two examples of what the character of that private 
 information was. AVe have had it in the case of the 
 private information (which operated, I have no doubt, 
 on the mind of Inspector Davis) of Thomas O'Connor, as 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE zil> 
 
 to whom I shall have a good deal to say hereafter. 
 There is no doubt that Thomas O'Connor was one of the 
 informers upon whom he was relying. In the case of 
 another inspector, the man Buckley, who by his own 
 confession was a very disreputable creature, was another 
 of the jn-ivate informers upon whom he was relying ; 
 and in the case of another — perhaps the most illustrative 
 ex.'imple of all — there was the informer Coleman, who, 
 your Lordships will recollect, was engaged in the con- 
 spiracy known by the name of the Crossmolina 
 ('oiispiracy, and who, during the whole period of his 
 nefarious trafticking in crime in connection with another 
 person called Ma<;aulay, was in regular correspondence 
 with Inspector Ball, and from the beginning to the end 
 of the whole of that correspondence (it is most important 
 — the letters are on the note before your Lordships), with 
 the exception of one letter, there is not a suggestion, 
 direct or indirect, that the Land League had anything to 
 do with any of that crime ; and that one suggestion is a 
 suggestion that in relation to some matter (1 cannot re- 
 call what, and I will not stop to look it up) somebody 
 told him that £5 or £10 was coming from the Ladies' 
 Land League. With that single exception there is not 
 a reference to the Land League in the whole of the story. 
 And when I remind your Lordships (for it is important 
 to bear in mind that at the period to which we are 
 referring the Government was hostile, intensely hostile, 
 to the whole movement, and to those who were at the 
 head of the movement) that it would have been a matter 
 of the greatest political moment to the Government of 
 the day, whatever that Government was, if there could 
 have been evidence produced in any w^ay to connect the 
 Land League in any direct fashion with crime ; when 
 your Lordships further recollect all the temptations to 
 
334 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 cupidity that such a state of things affords, it — I do not 
 wish to use strong words, but, I say, — it is marvellous 
 that in the whole of this disreputable fellow Coleman's 
 evidence there is not, from the beginning to the end of 
 it, with the single exception I have mentioned, a refer- 
 ence to any connection with the Land League. 
 
 But, my Lords, there is this further general observa- 
 tion important to be borne in mind, that Avith the 
 exception of the case of Timothy Iloran and the «;heque 
 for .£6, initialled " J. F.," there is not a tittle of evidence, 
 except the evidence of Coleman, to which I have referred, 
 of O'Connor, Buckley, and two men called Jago and 
 Tobin, not a syllable of reference to any statement of 
 fact in support of the broad allegation made by the 
 Attorney-General that crime was systematically paid for 
 by or at the instance of the Land League. I shall, of 
 course, have to examine their evidence, or some one else 
 will, and go into it in detail; but the further general 
 observation I have to make in relation to that class of 
 evidence seems to me to be pregnant with meaning and im- 
 portance, and it is this ; that in every one of those cases 
 the men confessed themselves to be not only members of 
 secret societies, but in every case, I think, with hardly 
 an exception, if there be an exception at all, were sworn 
 into the secret organisation as a kind of preliminary to 
 their being engaged in any kind of crime, or of outrage. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I say Captain Plunkett's evidence, 
 and the evidence of men of whom he is a type, while it 
 points to his suspicion, gives no real ground, as I submit 
 — no legal grounds would be quite enough for me — 
 no moral ground even, upon which the conclusion at 
 which he arrives can properly be defended or be justi- 
 fied. But there was one other remarkable witness. I 
 do not know whether I am entitled, or whether my 
 
xv[ EXA^rINATION OF ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 335 
 
 learned friends and myself are entitled, to take credit for 
 it before your Lordships, but certainly we have conducted 
 tills case, if our case is a rotten case, in the most indis- 
 creet fashion, for every one of these witnesses, Captain 
 riunkett and the rest, have been asked their opinions, 
 and have been pressed as to the justification for their 
 opinions, and we have opened to them doors which they 
 have certainly availed themselves of for the ventilation, 
 not of evidence of fact, but of evidence of suspicion and 
 of opinion ; and we have tried to test them. 
 
 Now, I will take another case — Captain Slack. lie cnptaiu 
 is the only other one of this class with reference to whom 
 [ shall at all trouble your Lordships. His evidence begins 
 at page 2125, and I may remind your Lordships the 
 course his evidence took. Towards the end of my 
 cross-examination I asked him, "Captain Slack, you 
 have a })ilc of })apers before you," these being the private 
 dossiers or the ]jrecis of various outrages reported to 
 him by the police, and I said, " Can you produce one 
 of those which justifies your suspicion or opinion that 
 there is connection between the action of the Land 
 League and crime?" Jle was rather unhappy in his 
 first selection, because he produced a case which he 
 admitted, and I think Captain Slack gave his evidence 
 candidly enough, not only did not prove, but was in- 
 consistent with the case he alleged ; but then he said 
 he had lots of others. Thereupon I invited him, indis- 
 creetly, if the case I am representing is a rotten one, to 
 bring them, and on page 2315 he is recalled. I am not 
 going to stop to examine the cases. This must be done in 
 greater detail than is proper in this connection. I desire 
 only to present to your Lordships a broad general view 
 of this matter. 1 say it was a rubbishy collection of 
 cases to maintain the o-rievous alleo-ations that are here 
 
 o o 
 
336 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 put forward, that Captain Slack, witli an experience 
 over eight counties (1 pray yonr attention to tliat), 
 was able to bring up, in order to justify the opinion 
 he was advancing. He was not confined to legal 
 evidence, but was allowed to bring up any scra[) of 
 official documents or contemporaneous records to justily 
 him, and I say the result was an exhibition of 
 a number of cases, few of which had any favourable 
 bearing in support of his view even, but the whole col- 
 lection of which were trumpery in the highest degree 
 in face of the serious matters we are here inquiring into, 
 iiuyo. Now I should like to present to your Lordships 
 
 similarly, in a general view, an account of the out- 
 rao-es in the four counties which I have mentioned, 
 other than murders. Those I reserve for a separate 
 consideration. I take Mayo first. I, of course, am 
 dealing with the cases only in which detailed evidence 
 was given. Your Lordships will, of course, understand 
 1 am not dealing with cases referred to in schedides 
 put in, the particulars of which we have not had given, 
 and the circumstances of which we have not had given ; 
 I am dealing with cases in which it was sought (because 
 I presume I am justified in saying that tiiose were the 
 cases which were relied upon) to establish connection 
 between the Land League, or the leaders of the Land 
 League, and crime. In JMayo, evidence was given of 
 twenty-five outrages, of which four were murders — 
 Feerick, Barrett, Freeley, and Dillon. Those I will pre- 
 sently deal with. The remaining twenty-one were cases 
 either of firing into houses, with or without actual injury 
 following, firing at the person or boycotting, in some 
 cases accompanied with violence, in a number of the cases 
 with trivial acts of violence. Now of those twenty-one, 
 six (that is to say, the case of Brown referred to at page 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 337 
 
 1547, of Scott at page 1550, of the two Hogans at pages 
 1552 and 1553, of Kirby at page 1553, and of Wood at 
 page 1555) occuiTed in the Crossmolina district, and are 
 referred to in the evidence of Coleman. I do not wish 
 to repent myself as to Coleman's evidence, your Lord- 
 ships will carry it in your mind, but I say outside Cole- 
 man's evidence, there is no evidence of any connection 
 whatever with the League. On the contrary, as appears 
 in the course of Coleman's own evidence and some corre- 
 spondence which was read between him and Macaulay, 
 and between him and the man Nally, to whom here- 
 after some passing reference may be made, some of the 
 members of the secret society of whom Coleman was one, 
 who were engaged in these crimes, were not only not 
 members of, but were opposed to the Land League. 
 
 Three cases were from Swinford, AVhite at page 
 15G3, 8h)yne at page 15G4, and Haukin at page 15G6. 
 In not one of those cases is any connection, be- 
 tween the outrage and any branch of the League, 
 shown, or even suggested. In the cases of White and 
 Sloyne, two of those cases, they were visited on the 
 same niglit l)y the same party in February 1882, at a 
 time when the League was suppressed. In the third 
 case, Hankin's, no date is given for the visit at all, and 
 it was obviously a moonlighting party, and in no way, 
 so far as the evidence goes, connected with the League. 
 
 Five of the remaining cases, namely, Connell at 
 page 1575, Faliy at page 1588, Moloney at page 1589, 
 Sheridan at page 1757, Walsh at page 1759, were out- 
 rages against men who were alleged to have grabbed 
 land, and again there is no connection shown in any way 
 with any branch of the League. 
 
 Two cases, Bingham, page 1534, Carter, page 1590, 
 arose, as the witnesses said, out of tlie landlord's refusal 
 
 z 
 
338 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 to give abatements to liis tenants, and in Carter's case 
 the tenants afterwards got rednctions in the Land Courts, 
 and got relief under the Arrears Act ; and, again, in those 
 eases no connection was shown with the Land League. 
 
 I have five more cases to deal with, and then I have 
 exhausted them all. Three cases were the cases of Captain 
 Boycott at page 1636, Michael Farragher at page 1646, 
 and Gildey at page 1646. Those three cases are grouped 
 together because they were connected with Boycott's case, 
 those two men, I thijik, being persons who worked for 
 him. Captain Boycott is famous, because he has added 
 a new word to English dictionaries ; but I think it right 
 to say of Captain Boycott, that, although undoubtedly he 
 was boycotted, and although there can be no defence of 
 his boycotting, he gave his evidence in the box without 
 the slightest apparent animus. I thought he gave his 
 evidence most fairly, and I understand he is exceedingly 
 popular in his own neigld.)ourhood, now that tlic troul^le 
 is past and gone, and that there was even some question 
 of bringing him forward as member for the county in 
 which he lives. But, in truth, although Captain Boycott 
 did receive considerable annoyance and trouble, there 
 Avas no grievous outrage or crime in his case at all ; and, 
 so far from its being directed against Captain Boycott 
 personally, it arose, apparently, entirely from the fact 
 that he was agent for Lord Erne, and that a number of 
 disputes had arisen between him simply as agent and 
 some of the tenants of Lord Erne. 
 
 The connected cases of Smith and M'Call exhaust 
 the twenty-one. Smith's case is at page 1688, and 
 M'Call's is at page 1690. Smith was the agent of Lord 
 Sligo, who was fired at when he was collecting rents, and 
 this is admitted to have occurred before there was any 
 foundation of the League at all. 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF " THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE 
 
 339 
 
 I have gone through, and I believe accurately gone 
 through, with the careful assistance of my learned friend, 
 these cases from Mayo ; and that is what I ask your 
 Lordsliijis to say is a fair result of the evidence. Of 
 course your Lordsliips still understand that this is apart 
 from tlie murders, witli wliicli I am not now dealinsf. 
 
 l^^'om ( /orlv there were twenty-five cases, one of which Cork, 
 was a murder, Regan. Of tlic rest of those Cork cases, 
 the only one of any real importance is the Hegarty case, 
 and tlie group of cases whicli belong to the Hegarty 
 case. llegarty's case is at page 1302; Kelleher's in 
 connection with it, page 1327 ; O'Connor's at page 1329 ; 
 Mr. Fitzgerald's at pages 1332 and 1360; Sweeney's 
 at page 13G1 ; Eiordan's at page 1363; and Keefe's at 
 page 1757. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I say at once that this boycotting 
 of Hegarty, in my judgment, is not for one single instant 
 to 1)0 defended, 1 tliink it is a very bad case, I think 
 it is l)y far tlie worst case that has come before your 
 Lordshi]\s. But I wish to make an observation or two 
 about it. As one of your Lordships has read the evidence 
 before the Cowper Commission, it is possible your Lord- 
 ships' observation has extended to the evidence of Canon 
 Crillin, who was called before that Commission, but 1 
 do not need to refer to that for this purpose. Hegarty's 
 own evidence in this case, and the evidence of Canon 
 Griffin applying to Hegarty's case, I propose to refer 
 to ; and you cannot doul)t that at the bottom of the 
 Ijoycotting was a personal feeling against Hegarty, 
 which had nothing to do with the Land League proper 
 at all. 
 
 Hegarty's position was this. He was a man of 
 very hunil)le origin who had raised himself (to his 
 <'?edit be it said), l)ut he was S2)ruiig from the people, 
 
340 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 even from the very lower order of the people. lie hiul 
 got on in the world, and he had delil)erately chosen his 
 side in this great controversy. I to had chosen to take 
 the landlord side. He was perfectly entitled to do it. 
 He had chosen to row in the same boat with the land- 
 lords, and to turn his back upon people of his own class, 
 of the class from which he had sprung, and to champion 
 the cause of their adversaries ; and I say that, in that 
 state of things, if there never had been a Land League, 
 ay, and in spite of the Land League, especially 
 when in 1880, in his capacity of agent, he had to take 
 part, or did take part, in certain eviction proceedings, it 
 cannot be doubted that Mr. Hegarty would have been 
 an object of popular animadversion. It is true that the 
 Land League did take part in that boycotting. I do 
 not defend them for it, on the contrary, I condemn 
 them for it ; but it is to be noticed that, according 
 to Hegarty's own account, the president of the Land 
 League opposed that boycotting, and so strong was the 
 local opinion, that the opposition of the president was 
 not able to prevent its taking place. 
 
 One other observation : I have said there is some 
 evidence that some of the Land League took part in 
 that boycotting. That is rpiite true, but your Lord- 
 ships will bear in mind what was true, certainly in this 
 neighbourhood of Millstreet where he lived, namely, 
 that a great 2:)roportion of the people were members of 
 the Land League ; and if I am right in suggesting that 
 there were grounds which would account for this 
 popular feeling in his regard, it would be very difficult 
 to get anybody in the neighbourhood, or at least more 
 than a comparatively small proportion, who were not 
 members of the Land League. 
 
 o 
 
 Now, the next group of cases, and the only group of 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE 341 
 
 cases tliat in relation to Cork calls for observation, are 
 the cases which I may earmark as the Ballydehob cases. 
 Those are the cases of Cameron, at page 1423; Swanton, 
 at page 1423 ; Sullivan, at page 1424 ; Copthorne, at 
 page 1420; Ray croft, at page 1427 ; Daly, at page 
 1427; Attridge, at page 1428; Daly, at page 1437; 
 and tlio hi'cvity of their evidence pretty well shows 
 there was iiotliiiig sei'ious in the story at all. 
 
 ]\Ty ol)servation about it is twofold : first, that the 
 evidence disclosed no connection of any kind between 
 the outrages in tliese cases and the Land League ; next, 
 that we have got a negative piece of evidence which I 
 think is of considerable consequence, not merely for the 
 light it throws upon these cases, but for the light it 
 throws upon otlier cases. Your Lordsliips will recollect, 
 if you refer to the evidence of Royse, police constable, at 
 page 1442, tliat a search was made on the lltli January 
 1883 at the ollices of the local League. A raid was made, 
 and the triumj)liant sergeant or constable walked off from 
 that Brancli oiHce with all the books and papers that 
 he could find, and they have 1)een solemnly produced in 
 this court, and I presume (for 1 really have not troubled 
 to refer to them), they all appear printed in extenso, 
 helping to build up these volumes which will soon be a 
 serious en.cumbrance. Is tlicre anything in those 
 do(nnnents that suggests (for that is the case) that the 
 local League was using, as the machinery for its govern- 
 ment and for its agitation and local action, crime or 
 outrage in any shape or way ? Is there anything in 
 those d(^cuments, separately or collectively, upon which 
 any man of reasonably fair and candid mind would 
 attempt to Ijuild any such conclusion as that ? 
 
 My Lords, before I pass from Cork I should like, in 
 reference to Ilegarty's case of Millstreet, to make one 
 
342 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 observation. It is the one case which has been proved 
 in which the parish priest of the place, Canon Gritiin, 
 took no part in the League, and was hostile to it, 
 although he admits in his cross-examination the 
 desperate state of things there. He says there would 
 have been very great distress Init for the large sums given 
 in the form of relief, and he goes on to say, wliich is cer- 
 tainly not in accord with our information, that he never 
 heard of a case where a reduction of the original rent 
 was refused, where a reduction was absolutely necessary. 
 
 " Previous to the agitation," he said, " a very hirge portion of 
 the lands about Millstreet were entirely too over-rented, and I was 
 often surprised, when I asked the people, that they did not complain 
 about their rents. They seemed satisfied. They seemed con- 
 tented, and I was greatly surprised, because I thought, looking at 
 the aspect of the country and of the land, that they really were 
 greatly over-rented." 
 
 The excessive rents which prevailed and the very 
 deep and great distress were, he says, the causes which 
 provoked the agitation, that is page 1379. I think it is 
 fair to make this observation, that it may well be 
 doubted whether, if Canon Griffin, as the priests in 
 other places did, had taken an active part in guiding 
 the people under his charge, ratlier than of showing 
 opposition and hostility to them, whether he probably 
 might not — I would respectfully say it of him — have 
 effected more good. 
 Gaiway. My Lords, 1 pass to Gal way. From Galway evidence 
 
 was given of forty-two cases of outrage and crime, of 
 which unhappily as many as twelve were murders. In 
 most of those cases the connection with the local branch 
 of the League was either not asserted by any of the 
 witnesses or was in many instances expressly disclaimed 
 by the witnesses. 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 343 
 
 Now some of these cases were remarkable. There 
 was the case of Rafferty, who was carded on the 29th 
 May 1880, and the Attorney-General, when he referred 
 to the case in his opening speech, suggested that that 
 was in consequence of a speech made two months 
 afterwards ! I do not mean that the Attorney-General 
 used tliat language, for it is very easy to fall into 
 a mistake of this kind ; but as a matter of fact, the 
 speech the Attorney-General was observing upon was 
 made on the 25tli July 1880, and the carding in the 
 case of Rafferty was the 27th May of the same year. 
 Rafferty's case is at pnge 491. 
 
 Tlien there w\as the case of Connair, whose house 
 was burnt, and I should like to remind your Lordships 
 of liis case. It is at page 620. His house undoubtedly 
 was burnt, and the suggestion was that he was threat- 
 ened for paying rent. 1 think there is not the least 
 doul)t from what happened in the course of that case, 
 which I will remind your Lordships of, that he had so 
 stated to the other side, that he had so stated to the 
 policeman, or to whomever it was that he first made his 
 communication ; but in court lie denied it. Then follow 
 the cases of Fallow, at page 595 ; Corless, at page 602 ; 
 Leonard, at page 617 ; Conway, at page 630 ; Joyce, at 
 page 639 ; J. Conway, at page 835 ; and P. Sullivan, at 
 page 844. And in no one of those cases, as far as wdtli 
 tlie assistance of my friends 1 can ascertain, is there any 
 suggested connection. Iloarty's case your Lordships 
 may possibly recollect, but tlierc are so many. It is at 
 page 757. Although he was a Land Leaguer, he was 
 moonlighted. He expressed the strong opinion that the 
 Land League had nothing whatever to do witli it ; and 
 it is observable that certain persons were tried and 
 punished for that moonlighting expedition upon him ; 
 
344 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 and none of them (I believe I am correct in saying) 
 were shown to be Land Leaguers. 
 
 Then, my Lords, there are the cases of Small, at 
 page 685; Hughes, at page 676; Lydon, at page 686. 
 Those, my Lords, were cases of simple boycotting where 
 there was no violence, and where the boycotting was 
 not of any great severity. 
 
 Then there is the case of Ilonan, at page 663, and 
 J. Conway, at page 835 ; and in those cases the outrage 
 was publicly condemned and denounced, as indeed it 
 was in one or two of the others I have mentioned. 
 
 Then, my Lords, I come to a case connected with 
 Mrs. Blake, of Renvyle, at page 641 ; and Bottrell, at 
 page 604 ; and although all those cases, I think, may 
 well be accounted for, when they come to be examined, 
 by the supposed harsh conduct of the landlords, I have 
 something further to say about IMrs. Blake's case. Mrs. 
 Blake, your Lordships will recollect, was a lady who 
 gave her evidence with a great deal of animus, and if 
 her story was literally the whole truth, perhaps it wovdd 
 not be unnatural. She was a lady whose herd followed 
 her into the box, and who, as he came into the box, 
 referred to Mrs. Blake as "Her Royal Honour" — I do 
 not know whetlier your Lordships recollect that, — an ex- 
 pression not very common and certainly showing a. curious 
 condition of servility to which the L*ish lower classes 
 are reduced. There will be sometliing said about tliis 
 lady in the course of the evidence. If the accounts put 
 before me are true, it would be extraordinary if there 
 were not the very strongest feeling in her regard. I am 
 not putting it forward in the least, I need not say, as a 
 defence, or justification, but as showing there were or 
 may have been other causes quite outside the Land 
 League. I know the district well, and a more miserable 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF " THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE 345 
 
 class of creatures it would Le difficult to find anywhere. 
 Of those tenants a great majority, as your Lordships 
 will hereafter see, received relief and lived to a great 
 extent upon the relief fund, in the distribution of which 
 she assisted, but towards wdiich, I believe it will appear, 
 she did not contribute one farthing. 
 
 (The President) I have an impression she said so. 
 
 (Sir C. Russell) Your Lordship is right ; she said so. 
 
 Bottrell is another case that will exhibit the same 
 thing. But I have particularly to call attention to this 
 case at Renvyle, which is the place where this lady 
 lived. It is close to Letterfrack. Letterfrack was the 
 scene of the murder of the Lydens, and your Lordships 
 will recollect the story of the Lydens was one of the 
 saddest stories in the whole case, and you will recollect 
 that it was that murder for which one of the Walshes 
 sulfercd, and paid the penalty of death. He was the 
 son of a tenant evicted by a neighbouring landlord 
 called Graham, and the story of the informer, whose 
 name was Mannion, your Lordships may recollect, 
 was supplemented later by the boy who was too 
 young, as he told us, to be sw^orn into a secret 
 society, but who spoke to having l)een mixed up with 
 some of tlie criminal proceedings. They described meet- 
 ings of this body, all of them, with the exception of this 
 boy, sworn members of this secret society, and the boy 
 Heanne was brought to say that the meetings at the 
 house of the widow woman Walsh, the mother of the 
 l)oy who was hanged for the murder of the Lydens, were 
 Tjand League meetings. My Lords, the examination 
 shows that it is the merest idle pretence and invention 
 to suggest anything of the kind. The parish priest and 
 curate of that neighbourhood were at the head of that 
 Land League, and, as 1 am instructed, more evidence 
 
346 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 will be given before you, which will show your Lord- 
 ships not only the state of that district, but will prove 
 that none of these men had any connection with the 
 Land League, and that it is a complete and absolute 
 invention to suggest that at Mrs. Walsh's house any 
 Land Lea";ue meeting was ever held. 
 
 My Lords, as regards Galway, it is further to be 
 recollected that there is, no doubt, evidence of the wide 
 existence of distress, and of the small efforts made by 
 the landlords, by any sacrifice of their own, to relieve 
 it or to meet it. Further, my Lords, Woodford is in 
 Galway, and some of the serious murders which have 
 taken place, your Lordships know, in this connection, 
 have been connected with the mana2;ement of Lord 
 Clanricarde's estate. I have spoken of the occasional 
 gleams of intelligence which pass over the conduct of 
 The Times in reference to L^ish matters, and this was 
 one of them ; and I can refer your Lordships to articles 
 in The Times relating to the conduct of Lord Clanricarde 
 towards his tenants, as strong as almost anything which 
 has been said by any of the L'isli members in relation 
 to that conduct. So much for Galway. 
 Kerry. Tlic ucxt evidcuce relates to Kerry, in which sixty-five 
 
 outrages have been proved over the ten years 1879-88, 
 of which six are murders. These, of course, I 
 will deal with separately. Again, my Lords, the same 
 general observation is to be made here, that in many of 
 those cases the alleged or suggested connection with the 
 Land League is disproved by the witnesses, or it is not 
 suggested ; or where suggested, as it is in the evidence 
 of what I may call the official witnesses — as, for instance, 
 the evidence of Crane and Davis— it is put forward as 
 a matter of opinion, or of suspicion, in support of 
 which no tanjrible evidence is offered. And 1 think 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE 347 
 
 that will l)e found to apply to the case of Ray, at page 
 851 ; of Clifford, at page 8G4 ; of P. Sullivan, at page 
 891; McCarthy, at page 901; "Williams, at page 910; 
 Dowling, at page 912; Prindervillc, at page 9 1 G ; Breen, 
 at page 942; and Galvin, at page 1151. There is a 
 case of Brown, at page 1156, where there was an mter- 
 vention of the League after the outrage had been com- 
 mitted ; that was a case at Castleisland ; hut, as I am 
 instructed, there was, in fact, no League in existence at 
 Castleisland at the date of the outrage. Then there is the 
 case of Donohoe, at page 11G3 ; Cronin, at page 1236 ; 
 and Sheeliy, at page 1261. Another group of cases 
 from Kerry, which cases may he called the Aniscaul 
 cases, which your Lordships will find are conveniently 
 put, or almost entirely put together, beginning at page 
 1197 down to page 1205. They are cases of boycot- 
 ting, some of them trivial cases of violence, none of them 
 serious ; and your Lordships will find that Sergeant 
 Shea., one of the witnesses called to prove them, while 
 speaking to some of those, admitted that that district 
 of Aniscaul was free from serious outrage. 
 
 The cases which seem to be important in Kerry are 
 the cases spoken to by the three informers, O'Connor, 
 Buckley, and Tobin. O'Connor is the only witness who 
 has said anything tending to implicate by name any of 
 the persons here accused, and he has mentioned the 
 name of Mr. T. Harrincrton. I will hereafter deal with 
 his evidence, as far as relates to Mr. T. Harrington, when 
 I come to examine the evidence relating to individual 
 members. Buckley and O'Connor will be dealt with 
 also more fully hereafter, when your Lordships have 
 had the evidence of both sides before you ; I will only 
 point out in the meantime that the evidence of Buckley 
 and of Coleman, as well as of O'Connor, stands without 
 
348 EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvi 
 
 any substantial corroLoration, because the only corrob- 
 oration, or the only alleged corroboration of it, really 
 merely pointed to show that the incidents — that is to say, 
 outrages, or moonlighting, such as O'Connor described 
 — had, in fact, occurred. But there was no one called 
 whose evidence amounted to corroboration, there was 
 no one called who gave any corroboration to their 
 account, in the sense of showing who was present and 
 took part with O'Connor or Buckley or the others, in 
 the way they alleged they had taken part. I would 
 mention that extraordinary story in reference to the 
 man Roche — I do not know whether your Lordships 
 recall it — the story of Buckley going with a pistol, with 
 the intention, as he asked your Lordships to believe, of 
 murdering Roche on the high road, or in the field adjoin- 
 ing the high road, and clicking his pistol four or five times 
 at him ; how he was then taken up by Roche, and how 
 in view of this, the magistrate dealt with the matter 
 simply by calling upon Buckley to give bail and keep the 
 peace for twelve months ; whereas, if Buckley's account 
 were to be believed, there was a distinct murderous 
 attempt on the part of Buckley, and an offence which, 
 according to Buckley's suggestion, he had been in- 
 structed by certain members of the local branch of the 
 Land League to commit. 
 
 My Lords, I again repeat that, with the exception 
 of these informers, whose evidence I have mentioned, 
 and except the question of the Horan cheque which I 
 will deal with by itself, there is not a particle of evidence, 
 certainly no corroborated evidence, directly or indirectly, 
 connecting the central branch or a local branch, or any 
 member of the central branch, or any member of a 
 local branch, with the payment of one farthing of money 
 in regard to any crime or any outrage. 
 
XVI EXAMINATION OF ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE 349 
 
 I liave further to observe, as regards Kerry, that 
 while, on the one hand, the League was weak, secret 
 societies were undoubtedly strong, especially in Castle- 
 island and the Causeway district ; and I have to call 
 your Lordships' attention also — it will be given in the 
 course of the evidence in fuller detail — to the fact that 
 denunciations of crime, apparently sincere, earnest, 
 hearty dciumciations of crime, frequently appeared in 
 the local paper, the local organ of the League, the Kerry K^rry 
 Sentinel; and lastly, I have to call your Lordships" 
 attention to what is perhaps the most extraordinary fact 
 of all, that while there have been many persons prose- 
 cuted, and many persons punished in respect of moon- 
 liohtino; and outrage in Kerry, and there are some men 
 said to have been punished who were members of the 
 Land League, there is no case — and I would be glad to 
 be corrected at the moment if I am wronir — there is 
 not a single case of any member of the Land League 
 in ofhcial position, as president, as treasurer, as vice- 
 president, or as secretary, who has ever been charged in 
 reference to any of these occurrences. I have stated it 
 broadly, but I believe 1 have also stated it correctly. 
 
XVII. 
 
 "THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 
 
 Now, my Lords, so much for the general evidence other 
 Murders, than of murdcr, I now come to the murders. Let me 
 give you the figures. Of course your Lordships under- 
 stand that here I am dealing with the cases of crime of 
 wliich evidence of the circumstances has been given 
 before your Lordships, for as regards the mere schedul- 
 ing of a list of crimes which have occurred, but as to 
 which no evidence has been given, I do not feel called 
 upon in the least to deal with them, for there is no evi- 
 dence in the least connecting them with the Land League. 
 These murders are in point of time described thus : 
 In 1880, three murders; in 1881, seven murders; in 
 1885, twelve murders; in 1883, none; in 1884, none; 
 in 1885, two murders ; in 1886, one murder; in 1887, 
 none ; in 1888, one murder — making up the number of 
 twenty-six as to which evidence has been given ; and 
 your Lordships will follow from the dates given that, 
 of those murders, about half — I do not wish to state it 
 more strongly than is literally accurate — al)0ut half 
 occurred during the suppression of the Land League, 
 and while the leaders of the movement were in prison. 
 
 Now I will examine the cases, taking the counties in 
 
 the same way. The case of John Regan (I am takiiig 
 
 Cork, Cork county first) is the only one in Cork. The out- 
 
MURDERS 
 
 351 
 
 rage on liim occurred on the 29tli December 1885. In 
 this case the Attorney-General, at page 272, in opening, 
 referring to the case, said that he believed that he 
 would be able to prove that members of the Laud 
 League were engaged in the outrage. Now I will tell 
 your Lordships what the evidence is. Eegan was a 
 sub-tenant of one Sullivan, and Sullivan was evicted by 
 Beamish, his landlord, in April 1880. Kcgan, however, 
 Avas continued in his tenancy and got part of Sullivan's 
 land ; and the evidence of this poor man's daughter is, 
 that, after that, a few of the neighbours " behaved a 
 little different." Then, not until 1885 is this outrage 
 perpetrated upon him. Then it is said that the Friday 
 before the outrage a crowd came on the farm and 
 shouted at him and called him a grabber. That is the 
 whole of the evidence — I mean the pith of the evidence 
 in relation to John Regan. An attempt was made, 
 I think hardly a generous attempt, to suggest that the 
 president of the Land League, the Rev. Mr. Murray, the 
 parish priest, would not visit the family ; but as a 
 matter of fact, although this was said in examination in 
 chief, the cross-examination, as your Lordships will see 
 at page 12G5, showed the parish priest did not go 
 because he sent the curate, and the curate went to visit 
 the family in their trouble ; and really upon that small 
 foundation — the fact that this parish priest was the 
 president of the Land League — is based, or intended to 
 be based, the suggestion that he was in some kind of 
 sympathy with this shocking crime. My point is, that 
 as regards that, there is no connection suggested by any 
 of the evidence between this outrage and the local 
 League as a body, or any individual of the local League. 
 
 Now, my Lords, the next is the county of Mayo, Mayo. 
 and the first case I have to refer to is the case of 
 
352 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Mayo. Feerick. He was shot ou the 29th of June 1880, hut 
 died on the 25th of August 1880. lie was agent for a 
 number of hxndlords, including Mr. G. A. Brown. The 
 Attorney-General, in opening this case, referred to 
 meetings on the 2d and 3d of May 1880, addressed by 
 Mr. Parnell, Mr. Davitt, and others, at Irishtown, and 
 it was suggested that, after those meetings, namely, on 
 the 4th of May, there was an attempt at outrage upon 
 him, of which, however — whether it be true or not I do 
 not know — no evidence has been given at all. But 
 what I have to say is, that neither at that meeting, nor 
 at any other meeting, at or about or in connection with 
 this event or time, was any reference of any kind, direct 
 or indirect, made by anybody to Feerick. There were 
 meetings at Ballyglass, which is an entirely different 
 ■ place, and at Shrule, but no reference whatever made 
 to Feerick, and I shall challenge the reference if it is 
 suggested that there was any. It appears that this 
 unfortunate man had been party to the eviction of one 
 Geraghty in the year 1879, and — I cannot give you the 
 exact page where that appears, but it will be close upon 
 page 1527 — this had created a very bitter feeling in 
 the minds of the neighbours. 
 
 Therefore, my Lords, that is the whole of the case 
 before the occurrence of this condemnable and most 
 unhappy outrage. I quite agree that certain events 
 followed that which cannot be too strongly stigmatised. 
 I refer particularly to a spcccli that a mnn called Scrah 
 Nally is supposed to have made about Feerick at the 
 very time he was lying ill. That was most condem- 
 nable, and I would desire, in as strone;; lancjuao'e as 
 I could use, to denounce it ; but, as a matter of fact, his 
 language upon this occasion was not at a Land League 
 meeting at all. It was at a place called Bohola, and where 
 
MURDERS 353 
 
 lie improvised ca meeting in the market-place. He was i\i.ayo. 
 on his way from Cong to Ballinrobe, and there is no pre- 
 tence for saying tluit it was in any sense a Land League 
 meeting; but I admit this — the incident does point, 
 very strongly point, to the existence of an exceedingly 
 bad feeling in the minds of the people in the neighbour- 
 hood, who tolerate such language under such circum- 
 stances, in the case of a man particularly who was lying 
 on what proved to be his deathbed. There are one or 
 two instances of this state of feeling which, of course, 
 every one is shocked at, and must earnestly regret to see 
 manifested. 
 
 There is the entire story except the fact that the 
 solicitor who defended certain men charged with the 
 offence was instructed by some one connected with 
 the Land LeaQ;ue, I think it Avas said the chairman 
 or the president of the local Land League ; but these 
 men were acquitted, and no one has a right to say, after 
 that fact has been established, that there \vas anything 
 wrong or condcmnalde in taking that course. 
 
 I have had occasion before to refer, and I shall again 
 refer, to the general sense of distrust rightly or wrongly 
 entertained, based upon reasons to which I shall here- 
 after make some reference, as to the administration of 
 the law. It is a sad thing it should exist, still sadder 
 if there be any ground for it. 
 
 j\r.y Lords, 1 must make this addition, that after the 
 occurrence of tlie outrage, it was, as your Lordships 
 will liave ju'ovcd to you, denounced at a Land League 
 meeting by Father Canning. 
 
 The next is the case of Luke Dillon of Ballyhaunis. 
 The evidence your Lordships will find at page L577. 
 He was a tenant on the estate of one Farrell, and the 
 suo-o-ested reason of the murder was that he had assisted 
 
 2 A 
 
354 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Mayo. the sheriff at certain evictions on that estate. Ilis son 
 received a threatening notice, and liis son's hay was 
 burnt. But this case, I am glad to say, was in contrast 
 w^ith the hist, in that universal sympathy seems to have 
 been displayed towards Dillon and his family. The 
 funeral is described by the policemen and others, at 
 pages 1578 and 1580, as being a large funeral, the 
 neighbours as being kind and sympathetic, and this is 
 suggested, I do not do more than say it is suggested, 
 that Luke Dillon was a man who was in the habit of 
 carrying about with him considerable sums of money, 
 and that on the occasion in question he was found, on 
 the night after the outrage was committed, with no 
 money at all upon him. Therefore, undoubtedly, in the 
 minds of some people there, the character of this outrage 
 was other than agrarian. 
 
 That, my Lords, is the second of the Mayo cases. I 
 leave it by pointing out that, unless I am quite wrong- 
 in my examination of the evidence, there is not one 
 tittle of evidence to connect that case with the Land 
 League, or with any member of the Land League. 
 
 The next is Patrick Freeley, of Blackloughbay. 
 This was the son of a man called David Freeley, a poor 
 old man who was called before your Lordshi])s (page 
 1 5G()),but who was not alhided to by the Attorney-(jieiicral 
 in his opening, and this old man Freeley — I recollect the 
 old gentleman well, one's sympathy went out to him 
 naturally — he, bearing this great sorrow and trouble, 
 came to prove the circumstances of the case, but he, 
 even earnestly, disclaimed the suggestion that the Land 
 League had anything to do with it Avhatever. It 
 appears that his son's death came about in this way: 
 he was visited by a party of moonlighters or some 
 such class, wlio asked wdiere was the "bloody rent 
 
MURDERS 
 
 355 
 
 puyer," and he went on to say that all his neighbours Mayo. 
 had, like himself, paid their rent. He himself was a 
 member of the Land League and on the committee of 
 the Land League. The murder was denounced by the 
 League and by the Catholic priest. The Archbishop, 
 Dr. M'Evilly, appears to have come down specially in 
 view of this and denounced it very strongly, and appar- 
 ently no one in that neighbourhood has suggested or 
 appeared to entertain the opinion that it was in any 
 sense a Land League outrage. It is sufficient for my 
 puipose that in the evidence no connection whatever is 
 shown with the League. 
 
 The next is Thomas Barrett, the 10th of May 1882; 
 your Lordships will find the evidence beginning at page 
 1544. Tliis man, so far as I could see, had done 
 nothing wliich would have been calculated, even in the 
 state of o})inion j)rcvailing at this time, to bring down 
 upon him the animadversion of his neighbours. It 
 appear(?d all he had done was to take some grazing from 
 A. S. Bingham, which one Beilly had given up shortly be- 
 fore ; but this is suggested, your Lordships will find, at 
 pages 1535 and 1545, that Barrett had, in reference to 
 the murder of a man called Carter, which had happened 
 some time before and which has no bearing upon any 
 question your Lordships are considering — that this man 
 liarrett was supposed to have given, or was suspected 
 of having given, or said that he could give, informa- 
 tion as to the parties who were mixed up in Carter's 
 case. 
 
 I do not mean to say it is very definite. His poor 
 widow was examined and cross-examined, and at page 
 1545 she says : — 
 
 " Up to the day he was shot I never lieard of any unkindness ; 
 up to the very moment we were on good terms with everybody." 
 
356 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Mayo. (That is to say, with the neighbours.) "^M}" husl)aiid said to me 
 that some particular man, he thought, had shot at Carter. lie 
 named that man Martin Hanahan. He did not tell me that he had 
 said anything about it at the fair." 
 
 I am reading au analysis of the evidence which gives 
 the substance of it ; but, again, it is enough for me to 
 say that any evidence connecting the Land League is 
 entirely wanting. 
 Gahvay. Now, my Lords, I pass on to the Gal way murders, and 
 
 I will deal first with one which, from its circumstances 
 and from the supposed position of the unhappy victim, 
 attracted a good deal of attention — I mean the case of 
 Lord Mountmorres; which occurred on the 26th October 
 1880. 
 
 Broadly 2:)ut, whoever were at the bottom of this 
 murder, there is no ground for saying — I mean no 
 sufficient ground for saying — from the facts as proved, 
 that it was agrarian at all. Lord Mountmorres's pro- 
 perty — your Lordships will see it referred to in the 
 evidence — was very small. He liad eleven tenants ; 
 his total rental was something like £50. lie lived in 
 a very small way. Your Lordships will probably hear 
 some evidence about his mode of life, and the places 
 he frequented in the neighbouring villages — the char- 
 acter of life which he led. But he had been under 
 police protection from as far back as August 1879, 
 and the hostility against him in the opinion of 
 those in the neighbourhood — and there is a sugges- 
 tion of this on the case as it is presented — was not 
 based upon agrarian reasons at all, but had relation 
 to his conduct as a maoistrate, and there were other 
 causes suggested which I do not desire to pursue ; 1 am 
 content with the negative position. Now, what was the 
 evidence in this case ? My Lords, the only evidence in 
 
MURDERS 357 
 
 this case wliicli suggests a coiniectiou with the Land oaiway. 
 League, if indeed it ean be pro2)erly said to be even so 
 niiicli, is the evidence of the informer Michael Burke. 
 
 1 (h) not know wlicthcr your Lordships recollect 
 that man ; I think I can recall him to your Lordships' 
 mind, because 1 cross-examined him myself, and I have 
 a. clear and distinct recollection of him. Your Lord- 
 ships will fnid his evidence on pages 1454 to 14G5, or 
 tlie })rincipal part of it. He was a man who formerly 
 worked at Jarrow, in tlie north of England ; he joined a 
 Kil)l3on society ; he was in the lia1)it of going Ijackwards 
 and forwards, at stated intervals, to the north of Eng- 
 land, and his story Avas that there was a secret meeting 
 — an odd place, by the way, for a secret meeting — 
 at the house of Kearney, a jiublican, in Clonbur, and 
 that Jvearney was a mendjer of the Land League ; that 
 he cons])ired witli, I think, two other persons, whose 
 names were mentioned, to perpetrate this murder ; that 
 he, Michael Burke, the informer, took no actual part in 
 tlie outrao-e himself; that he was not there when it was 
 enacted ; that he did not know from his own knowledge 
 Avho had taken the actual part in the murder, but by 
 reference to a statement which he made of what had 
 taken place on the evening of the same day, and again 
 in Kearney's house, and either in Kearney's kitchen, or 
 in Kearney's bar, he mentions the names of the persons 
 who were mixed u}» with it, meaning prominently to 
 convey — and that was the main point of his evidence — 
 that Kearney, who was su})posed to l)e connected, and 
 who was connected with the League, and who kept the 
 principal public-house in the place, was the plotter of 
 the murder. 
 
 This gentleman professed himself to be a member of 
 the licague. Hefore 1 read his evidence to your Lord- 
 
358 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Gaiway. sliips, I will remind you of this further fact, which a 
 little militates against the value of Burke's, the in- 
 former's evidence. It is this, tliat while Burke himself 
 was taken up and charged with the murder, but after- 
 wards released, when there was no evidence forthcoming 
 against him, Kearney, on whom he now desires to fix 
 complicity, never was charged and never was taken up 
 at all. That is not all ; for it appears that this man, 
 who has been induced to come here and give your Lord- 
 ships this account — I cannot recall for the moment the 
 particular policeman who saw him — but it appears — I 
 recollect the circumstance well — that he was reminded 
 by the policeman, as a district inspector on another occa- 
 sion reminded a witness of a similar class, that he, 
 Burke himself, was in peril over this matter. I point 
 out to your Lordships this, is it conceivable that a man 
 of this class, whose own account of himself is quite 
 enough, if your Lordships will take the trouble of read- 
 ing it, to show the kind of man he was, if he could have 
 shifted the blame of this murder on to Kearney, to save 
 his own wretched neck, when he was in custody and 
 charged with it, is it conceivable that he would not have 
 done so ? As regards Kearney, I refer your Lordships 
 to the evidence of John Farrell, the constable, at page 
 2297. He is called to say simply that he recollects that, 
 on the day of the murder, Burke was, in fact, in Kearney's 
 public-house. That is supposed to be a corroboration of 
 Burke, and then lie goes on to speak of Kearney l^eiug 
 in the street on the occasion of a meetino- in Clonbur. 
 That is not unimportant. The cross-examination is this : 
 this note does not purport to give it to your Lordships 
 literally, but it is believed to be the fair eftect of it put 
 compendiously. His cross-examination begins at page 
 2298 ; he is describing Kearney as in the street and 
 
MURDERS 359 
 
 certain persons marcliing in procession with imitation oaiway. 
 guns. 
 
 " They marched about Avith imitation guns. I could not say if 
 Kearney had anything more to do with it than any person in the 
 croAvd. His house was a mile off. I considered him a respectable 
 man at the time. Burke Avas in the kitchen ; customers came into 
 the kitchen. 1 did not attach the sh'ghtest importance to it at the 
 time. I think he could see that I Avas a policeman. About that 
 time AA^e Avcre looking up CA'idence in this particular case. Burke 
 Avns suspected. Kearney never Avas suspected. I saAv Lord 
 Mountmorres frequently go into Kearney's and other public-houses 
 to driidv. lie Avas A'cry poor, and lived in a very Avretched Avay. 
 It Avas the rumour at the time he Avas killed that it Avas not because 
 of the League, but for giving information to Dublin Castle." 
 
 And then, my Lords, this incident occurred, which is 
 not without its significance. He was asked in cross- 
 examination if, in liis judgment, the murder had any- 
 thing to do with agrarian matters or any land dispute at 
 that time. Tlie Attorney-General intervenes and objects 
 to the question being put, and it is not pressed. 
 Your Lordships may liave further evidence about tliis, 
 but I say, as regards this case, there is no evidence 
 worth anything connecting this with the League. I 
 will read your Lordships Michael Burke's account. 
 Again it is a compendious note, such as your Lordships 
 will probalily have taken down at the time, of the 
 evidence he gave. 
 
 "I Avas em})loyed at JarroAv first by a man named Palmer, tlien 
 by a man named Smith. I do not know Avhat Ribbonman means ; 
 it is something to the jwrpose of Ireland. I do not know the oath 
 the man put to me. I cannot name any others who were along 
 AA'itli me ; I had not to do AA'ith any society there for five or six 
 years. I Avas charged Avith killing a sheep, not stealing it. I got 
 free of it. I continued to Avork in the north of England for some 
 time. I attended a foAv meetings, but I cannot say Avhere they 
 Avere. I do not knoAV Avliethcr the meetings at Clonbiu' AA'cre Land 
 
36o ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Oalway. T.eague meetings or not. I will not swear that the meetings at 
 Kearney's were Land Leagne meetings or not. I will not swear 
 that there were any Land League meetings in Clonbur in 1880. I 
 Avill not swear that there was any branch of the Land League at 
 all in Clonbur before Lord Mountmorres's death. I will not swear 
 that I had a Land League meeting card before Ijord Mountmorres's 
 murder. I will not swear that anybody told me before Lord 
 Mountmorres's murder that there Avas a Land League meeting at 
 Clonbur at that time. I will not swear that Kearney was secretary 
 of the League, but that he was the secretary of some hind of branch 
 in the same society as myself." 
 
 I say, therefore, that as regards Lord Mountmorres's 
 murder, there is no connection whatever shown with the 
 Land League, 
 
 My friend Mr. Eeid reminds me of the hind of 
 character that this man was ; tliat tliougli lie took no part 
 in it himself, although he knew there was this infernal 
 design against the life of this poor man, he did nothing 
 whatever to warn him, although he saw him drive past 
 as he alleges, near the place where he was working, whei-e 
 he could, with perfect impunity to himself, have warned 
 him. I should like to say before I pass from this last 
 case that upon the next occasion, this murder having 
 occurred on the 26tli SeptemLer 1880, on the 3d 
 October 1880, at the next meeting of the Abbeyknock- 
 moy branch, which was the nearest to Clonbur — in fact, 
 as I am informed, there was no Land League at all at 
 Clonbur at this time — Father Eolinoton denounced the 
 murder strongly, and I refer your Lordships to the 
 evidence of O'Malley the police constable, at page 465, 
 who proved that fact. Your Lordships will recollect he 
 was one of the first witnesses called by The T'imes, and 
 was one of the shorthand reporters. 
 
 My examination of the case of the Lydens will be 
 shortened by the reference I have already made to it, 
 
MURDERS 361 
 
 Avlien commenting upon the case of Mrs. Blake ofcaiway. 
 Ilenvylc. The story is a very sad but a very simple one. 
 It appears that the landlord, called Graham, who had 
 some land sloping down to the bay, which I think is 
 called Ballynakill Bay, at Letterfrack, had a tenant of 
 the name of Walsh. That tenant was evicted, and this 
 poor person Lyden and his son were simply there 
 h(>r(liiig cattle of Graham's on this land. Walsh con- 
 tinned to live in the cottage by the roadside close to 
 the cross roads at Letterfrack, one road leading down to 
 Ilenvylc, the other to Clifden, and it is not very far 
 from that to the other, Kylcbeg, I think the name 
 of the place is ; and at this point these persons, 
 the family of the evicted tenants, the Walshes, were 
 living. 
 
 jMv Lords, it really is enough to say, in reference to this 
 case, that it was proved that this w^as an act of individual 
 vengeance of the Walshes, and of the friends in concert 
 with the AValshes, l)ecausc the son of the evicted tenant, 
 the son of this widow woman, the evicted tenant (the 
 father Avas not living), was tried and hanged for the 
 murder, and another son was sent to penal servitude for 
 being connected with the murder of the police constal)le 
 who was engaged in getting up the evidence convicting 
 his brother. I have referred already to the evidence that 
 will be forthcoming, as I am instructed, from the clergy- 
 man who lived in this })lace at this time, to show^ that 
 there was no pretence for saying there was any connection 
 between the Walshes and the League. 
 
 It is quite properly pointed out to me that when this 
 man j\[a union attempts to impose himself upon your 
 Lordships as being a member of the League, his evi- 
 d(>ncc is very important. He himself w\as charged with 
 Lyden's murder ; he was imprisoned, and was only let 
 
362 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 ciiihvay. out wliGii liis iiiirid gave way; then he was taken to an 
 asylum, and finally released altogether. 
 
 "I never heard of Fenianism before 1880. Father M'Andvew 
 is the parish priest." (That means, was the parish priest at that 
 time.) " I did not know him to be president of the Land League, 
 nor did I know Father O'Connor to be the secretary of the T^and 
 League. I would not call these Fenian meetings, because Fenians 
 Avould shoot a man before his face. All at Mrs. Walsh's were 
 Fenians ; we knew one another by secret signs. I got a Laud 
 League card. Pat Ruane and Varilly asked me to join the League. 
 Varilly is of Letterfrack. I cannot swear there was a Land League 
 in Letterfrack in 1880. Pat Walsh, the son of the evicted tenant, 
 was hanged for the murder." 
 
 That is from page 732 to page 736. Then in re- 
 examination the attempt to set him np is rather remark- 
 able, lie says in re-examination : — 
 
 " I never went to Mr. Walsh's before getting the I;and League 
 card " (which, however, he did not produce). " I went because I 
 was a sworn member of the League, I suppose, or whatever they 
 were. I do not know what they were." 
 
 Here is a man who says : "I did not know who the 
 president of the League was, I did not know wlio the 
 secretary of the League was," and yet he is put forward 
 in order to supply a connecting liidv — a rotten connecting- 
 link it proves to be — between the outrages and the 
 League. It is quite important I should make this clear. 
 It will prevent my going back upon it again. The points 
 I am now insisting upon are corroborated by the 
 evidence of Thomas Heanne (the cross-examination is at 
 page 2385), who is called to give corroborative testi- 
 mony of Mannion. I tliink your Lordships will prob- 
 ably recollect him. He is the boy I have already 
 referred to, who said he was too young to be sworn into 
 a secret society, and that was the only reason he was 
 not. But this man comes to give the same account. 
 
MURDERS 363 
 
 "(Q.) Do you know Father M'Andrew ? (A.) I do. (Q.) The Galway. 
 pavisli jtriest? (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you know Father O'Connor, 
 the curate 1 (A.) I do. (Q.) Was Father M'Andrew the president 
 of tlie r>and League ? (A.) I did not liear liim. (Q.) Jle was not 
 tlic president of tlie League that met at Walsh's? (A.) Well, I 
 am not sure. (Q.) First of all, did he ever take the chair at 
 
 Walsh's r' 
 
 JIo was asked in tlu} most solemn way by my learned 
 friend ]\Ir. Atkinson as to whether when he attended 
 tlie meeting at AValsh's there was not a motion that 
 somebody sliould take the chair, and that then there 
 was a resolution ^'^^^ssed, and my learned friend woidd 
 have sought by his examination in chief to convey to 
 your Lordships' minds that there was something like a 
 resfular oathcriucr, a reoular convention, and a reo'ular 
 formal resolution of the local Lea2;ue. 
 
 o 
 " 1 did not hear him. ((J.) lie was not the president of the 
 League that met at Walsh's? (A.) Well, I am not sure. ((;>.) 
 First of all, did he ever take the chair at Walsh's? (A.) No, 1 did 
 not hear of it. (Q.) Or did you ever see him at Walsh's ? (A.) 
 No. (Q.) Father O'Connor, did you hear that he was secretary? 
 (A.) No, sir, I never heard of that. (Q.) At all events he was not 
 secit'tar}^ of the League that met at AValsh's ? (A.) No. (0.) You 
 never saw him there % (A.) No, I never saw the man." 
 
 IMy Lords, the next is the case of James Conners. He 
 was, ])oor man, driving on the road near Kiltulla, which 
 is close to that centre of disturbance in this county 
 that we are now dealing with, near Loughrea. This is 
 th(^ case in which the widow told a story that seemed 
 extraordinary until the explanation had been suggested. 
 She said that on the road her husband was shot. No 
 doubt that was perfectly true. She said that she knew 
 the three men who had committed the murder. She 
 conveyed that they were members of the Land League. 
 Only two of the three were in fact charged or tried, and 
 
364 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Gaiway. both Were acquitted. My Lords, I believe that evidence 
 will be fortlicoming to this eftect; I am very lotli to 
 pledge myself distinctly to it, but, as I am instructed, 
 the facts are, that when asked after the occurrence by 
 the magistrates whether she could identify the persons 
 who committed the outrage, or any of them, she said 
 not ; that later, after the expiry of some nine months, 
 she swore to two persons, and that without calling upon 
 the defence, it being tried Ijefore a judge of the superior 
 court and a jury, upon the two inconsistent statements 
 being put in, first, at the time, that she did not know 
 and could not identify, and nine months after that she 
 could identify, these men were acquitted. 
 
 But now I want to call your Lordships' attention to 
 a little incident in connection with this poor woman's 
 evidence. My learned friend Mr. Murphy was examin- 
 ing this woman, at page 508. 
 
 " Had you known the men before ; did you know the men 
 before this outrage? (A.) I did. (Q.) Knew them well? (A.) 
 Yes, I did. (Q.) Were they tried 1 (A.) Yes. (Q.) Did you give 
 evidence against them? (A.) Yes. (Q.) Were they convicted or 
 acquitted ? (A.) Acquitted ; they were acquitted. (Q.) What 
 Avere the names of the three men ?" 
 
 And then follows my friend Mr, Murphy's observation, 
 which runs thus, and which is sicrnificant : — 
 
 " I shall want to show, my Lords, that they were prominent 
 members of the League. (Q.) What were the names of the three 
 men? (A.) One, Keogh ; one, Kyan. ((^.) AVho was the other? 
 (A.) I do not knoAv." 
 
 Now, before I follow this up for a moment, I want 
 to point out the hardsliip of the position in which we 
 are placed in this matter. If it be (as I am instructed) 
 true that this woman, l)efore the magistrate, immediately 
 after the murder, said she could not identify these people, 
 
MURDERS 365 
 
 and that it was not until nine months after, that she oaiway. 
 said she coukl, it is perfectly obvious when a man's life 
 is in question, no jury could act, and no judge would 
 allow a jury to act upon such contradictory testimony 
 as that. But not knowing anything about this lady, or 
 having any notice of what she was going to prove, we 
 were not in a position to cross-examine her, and, if 
 .nec(\ssary, I should even ask your Lordships that she 
 might be recalled for the purpose of putting these 
 questions to her. We have endeavoured to get the 
 depositions she made upon these two occasions ; but the 
 immediate point I am upon is this : my learned friend 
 Mr. j\[urphy, perfectly honCi fide I have no doubt, upon 
 instructions which certainly throughout this case have 
 proved singularly unreliable, said : " I shall want to 
 show, my Lords, they were prominent members of the 
 Lea.o-ue," referrino- to these two men wdio were charixed, 
 and who were acquitted. Now, what is the evidence ? 
 The witness wlio was called to prove the prominent 
 character of these members of the League is a witness 
 Hughes, a police constable, and he is called at page 
 509. 
 
 " You know the case of Conners. Have you attended meetings 
 of the Laud League % (A.) Yes. (Q.) Do you know the three men 
 nieiitioiied by Julia Conners in her evidence as having been those . 
 
 Avlio attacked her husband — Jolm Iviley, Patrick Keogh, and Edward 
 Fahy?" 
 
 As a matter of fact she had only just before said that 
 Keogh and Ryan she knew, but did not know who the 
 otlier was, and having first said she did not know, she 
 til en proceeds to mention him. 
 
 " Do you know the three men mentioned by Julia Conners in her 
 evidence as having 1)een those who attacked her husband — John 
 Eiley, Patrick Keogh, and Edward Fahy ? (A.) Yes. (Q.) Have 
 
366 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Galway. you seen any of them attending those Land League meetings % (A.) 
 Yes, invariably they attended the meetings there, some of them 
 with Land League cards in their hats. (Q.) Did they take a 
 prominent part? (A.) Well, I never saw them on the platform. 
 I saw them in the crowd. (Q.) With Land League cards in their 
 hatsi (A.) Yes." 
 
 And in cross-examination : — 
 
 " (Q.) How many people would be at these meetings'? (A.) I 
 daresay the last meeting I saw held, there Avere GOOO people." 
 
 So that tlie fact of men not being on tlie platform, Ijut 
 having cards in their hats and attending a meeting 
 which may have numbered 6000 people, is the 
 foundation, at least the proof in support of the 
 statement that they were prominent members of the 
 Land League ! 
 
 Now, the next case is the case of Peter Dumpsey, 
 also murdered under distressing circumstances. Your 
 Lordships will find the evidence relating to that case 
 principally at pages 500-506. This is the case arising 
 from the eviction of a man called Birmingham, whose 
 name your Lordships may recollect, who is shown in the 
 evidence to have been in the possession of his little 
 holding all his life (he was above 70 years of age), 
 who had himself lived there all his life, and whose fiiniily 
 had lived there before him, as far as the traditions of his 
 neighbourhood went, for years and years. lie was 
 evicted. The farm was taken by a man called ]\Iurty 
 Hynes, and it is perfectly true that Mr. Matthew Harris, 
 one of the accused parties, took strong action in relation 
 to Murty Hynes's course of conduct. That was at a 
 Land League meeting held on the 19th September 1880. 
 The result was that Murty Hynes gave up the farm, and 
 then this unfortunate man Peter Dempsey took it. The 
 meeting at which Mr. Matthew Harris spoke was on the 
 
MURDERS 367 
 
 19tli September 1880. He is not shown to have taken, caiwr 
 and I am instructed did not take, act or part in the 
 matter after that date, and that was by (I have not read 
 it, and I do not know, I will assume so) a strong speech 
 condemning JMurty Ilynes for taking the farm from 
 which Birmingham was evicted. It was not until May 
 1881 that this man Peter Dempsey, immediately after 
 his taking it, lost his life. It was vacant till March 
 1881, and on the 29th May 1881 the man Peter Dempsey 
 lost his life. The meetino;, therefore, was some eiijht 
 months before. I do not know whether it appears in 
 evidence, or whether it is evidence that is to be sub- 
 mitted, but I aj^pear to have got a note that Dempsey's 
 own brother was secretary of the local branch of the 
 Lengue. If it is not already on the note, it will 
 prol)ably be established in the course of the evidence. 
 Your Lordshi})S will find from the evidence of Barry, a 
 police inspector who was called, and whose evidence for 
 this purpose is at page 500, that he speaks to the 
 existence of a very strong feeling in the neighbourhood 
 in relation to land-grabbing. Of course, your Lordships 
 may take whn.t view you think right of Mr. Harris's 
 conduct in relation to Murty Hynes in giving up the 
 farm. I have pointed out to your Lordships already, 
 the reason why there does exist this strong feeling 
 against the taking of evicted farms, because it would 
 be eviction made easy if, without any re2^rehension or 
 without any condemnation by the public opinion of their 
 class, persons were to be allowed to take farms from 
 which others had been evicted under circumstances of 
 harshness. But it is enough for me to say that after 
 that date, the 19th September 1880, Mr. Matthew 
 Harris is not shown to have taken any part directly or 
 indirectly in reference to this farm. 
 
368 " THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvn 
 
 Gaivvay. Tlic iiGxt casc. I caii dismiss in a sentence. It is tlie 
 
 case of Sergeant Linton, Loughrea. It is the case 
 in which a publican of the name of Chirk and his wife 
 were arrested on suspicion of being parties to the murder; 
 but there is no agrarian cause whatever suggested, so 
 for as I can see, from beginning to end in reference to 
 that murder of Linton. The only thing that is said of 
 him is that he took notes at Land League meetings, 
 and as a shorthand notetaker he gave evidence in the 
 State trial in December 1880 or January 1881. Well, 
 a great many other policemen did that, and we have 
 not had a syllable of a suggestion that any animosity 
 was directed towards them merely for that reason. 
 I ought to say in passing tliat, undoubtedly, in 
 that case as in several others, very little sympathy 
 was manifested, and a very bad feeling was dis- 
 played in the neighbourhood of Loughrea in reference 
 to it. 
 
 The next case is Peter Doherty, who was a tenant 
 of Walter Burke. He lost his life on the 2d November 
 1881, after the suppression, as your Lordships, of course, 
 will be aware, of the League. No connection with the 
 League or with any members of the League is attempted 
 to be shown in the course of the evidence. Two men 
 were tried for the offence, and two men found guilty ; 
 and no evidence at all points to even the fact of mem- 
 bership of the League. I do not wish to state anything 
 which I cannot at once refer your Lordships to authority 
 in support of, but I am told that one of the two persons 
 who were tried was in fact a policeman, and he was 
 sentenced. I am quite right; at page 5 07 it is stated 
 that two men were found guilty of the murder of 
 Doherty, and that one was a policeman. Then in re- 
 examination there is this item, which is rather extra- 
 
MURDERS 369 
 
 ordinary : the convicted policeman was connected with Oaiway. 
 the Land League, and secret societies also." 
 
 The next case is, in some of its circumstances, an 
 extraordinary case. It is the case of the Iluddys, not 
 far from Clonbur, in the neighbourhood of Lough Mask. 
 These men w^re process-servers on the estate of Lord 
 Ardilauii, and tliere seemed, in January 1882, to he the 
 intention, on the ])art of the agent of that property, to 
 serve a considerable number of evictioii or other like 
 notices. The story of this shocking occurrence is told 
 by the man Kerrigan at page 590, who was himself 
 charged with being the murderer, and wdio w^as taken up 
 under that charge, and only released when he turned 
 informer and gave evidence against certain other men, 
 with the result tJiat two men named Iliggins and Flynn 
 were hanged for tliis grievous outrage. If your Lord- 
 shi])s know the wild country district, which was the 
 scene of this tragedy, you would be surprised to hear 
 that there was any suggestion of a Land League there. ' 
 The account which Kerrio;an in fact ogives, besjinning at 
 the page to which I have adverted, amounts to nothing 
 short of a rising of the whole village population against 
 the murdered men. Now, what is the evidence which 
 is supjtoscd to connect the Land League, or anybody 
 connected with the Land League, with this ? Literally 
 none l)efore the occurrence, and equally literally none, 
 when it conies to be examined, after the occurrence. 
 The attempt was made thus : Kerrigan, having been 
 arrested on the 3d of January, and no evidence being 
 forthcoming against him (your Lordships will find this 
 at page 594), was discharged in about six weeks' time, 
 and w\^s re-arrested apparently as a suspect on the 21st 
 February 1882, and there was evidence given to show 
 that, after that date, a payment of £1 w^as made by 
 
 2 B 
 
370 '■'■THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Gaiway. 0116 Mi's. Keating, a mcmljer of tlie Ladies' Land Leagne, 
 to the family of the man Kerrigan by the hand of his 
 wife, Bridget Kerrigan, dnring the time that this man 
 was in custody. That is the whole story from beginning 
 to end. That was after he had been discharged from 
 the charge of murder, and when he was re-arrested as a 
 suspect on the 21st February 1882. And, lastly, the 
 evidence further shows that the two men, Flynn and 
 HiiToins, who were handed for the murder of the Huddys 
 (I think the fair result of the evidence is that a great 
 many more, I am sorry to say, were concerned in it) 
 were men amongst others against whom the Huddys 
 had, at the moment they were murdered, in their pockets 
 processes of eviction. I do not wish to omit anything. 
 I have not a note of it, but I am told there is this 
 suo-sestion in the evidence of Kerriffiin. He was a 
 witness who spoke Irish, and I am not sure that we 
 perhaps got to the bottom of the matter ; l)ut I am told 
 that, at page 589, he did say: "Flynn belonged to 
 the Land League ; I gave him 6d. once for the Land 
 League." I am reminded (I had forgotten it) that there 
 was, at the moment he was giving his evidence, an 
 interruption on tlie part of my learned friend j\lr. 
 Harrington, who understands Irish, that the witness 
 had not said for the Land League at the moment it was 
 sup2:)0sed he had. I think the circumstance is really 
 too trivial to dwell upon. 
 
 The next case is a case I have already adverted to, 
 and can dismiss in a sentence ; that is the c-ase of 
 Sergeant Jvavanagh, at Letterfrack, a man who was 
 engaged in getting up evidence in relation to the nunxler 
 of the Lydens, and for this murder one of the Walshes 
 was hanged. This also was after the supjn-ession of the 
 League. 
 
MURDERS 
 
 3/1 
 
 TliG next case is the case of Walter Burke and GaUvay. 
 Corporal Wallace, who were shot. I think that there . 
 are two Burkes of that name. He is to be described as 
 Walter Burke of Ourraghleiorh. Corporal Wallace was 
 obviously not the object of the murderers, but was acci- 
 dentally sliot, being in cliarge of Burke at this time, I 
 do not til ink there is anything in the way of any direct 
 connection suggested with any speeches or with any 
 action of the League. There is a s})eech referred to as 
 having been made at Claremorris, by Gordon, on the 
 l.'^tli A[)ril 1881, but the murder in question took place 
 on the 8th May 1882, so that it was thirteen months 
 after the alleged speech. That speech was referred to 
 by the Attorney- General in his opening; but, as a 
 matter of fact, it was not proved to have been made. I 
 really do not know one way or the other whether there 
 was such a speech made, but I presume the statement 
 would not have been made without some authority for 
 it, although it may have been an unreliable authority ; 
 but at all events it stands thus, that assuming that a 
 speech was made, it w^as made on the 13th April 1881, 
 and it is very diflicult to see any causal connection 
 between such a speech delivered at C-laremorris and the 
 grievous outrage which occurred on the 8th May 1882, 
 thirteen months after, at Ardrahan. There is in this 
 connection again an ugl}^ incident — not one that has 
 any direct connection with- the story itself or the re- 
 sponsil)ility for this occurrence, but which again is one 
 of those incidents that I was referring to before, which 
 showed the undoubtedly bad temper that there pre- 
 vailed. There may have been some high colouring, a 
 little exaggeration perhaps in the incident ; but it was 
 that, upon the occasion of the murder, a number of 
 persons were found certainly conducting themselves in a 
 
372 ''THE ThMES'' EVIDENCE xvn 
 
 Gaiway, most uiifeeliiig way, to use the very mildest laiigiinge, 
 • at the scene where the murder had occurred. 
 
 The next case I regard as one of the saddest cases in 
 the whole of this dismal story. It is the case of John 
 Henry Blake, which occurred on the 29th June 1882. T 
 say one of the saddest, because, although Mr. Blake had 
 tlie grievous misfortune to he Lord Clanricarde's agent, 
 undoubtedly it is just to that man's memory to say that 
 he was exerting such influence as he had (if anybody can 
 be said to have any influence with Lord Clanricarde) on 
 behalf of the tenants. There is no doubt, from the 
 account that his poor widow gave your Lordships, that 
 he felt that justice and humanity alike suggested that 
 some relief from oppressive rents should be given to the 
 tenants in the circumstances in which they were then 
 situated. But unhappily for his agent, Mr. Blake, and 
 unhappily for the peace of mind of Mr. Blake's wife and 
 family, Lord Clanricarde appears to have turned a deaf 
 ear to those appeals. Your Lordships will recollect the 
 incident that after his death, when his wife naturally 
 desired to vindicate her husband's memory, the power of 
 the Court of Chancery was invoked to 2:>revent the pul> 
 lication of the correspondence which had passed between 
 him and Lord Clanricarde, and which, I presume, she 
 thought would have gone to vindicate his character and 
 his liumanity. 
 
 Here, again, my Lords, there is no connection of any 
 shape or kind between the Land League or members of 
 the Land League and this murder. There was a sug- 
 gestion undoubtedly made which has no bearing upon 
 the main question. I should be sorry to think j\lrs. 
 Blake had not been misled in her account of the matter, 
 for she suggested that there had been some apparent 
 delay on the part of a clergyman, the Rev. Father 
 
MURDERS 
 
 Vi 
 
 Egan, in coming promptly to her husband's assistance ; Gaiway. 
 but, again, although that of course is an incident im- 
 portant to her and important to him, it has no direct 
 hcnriug upon the matter in question. I would call 
 nttcntion to this — not for the j^urpose of emphasising 
 tlie mistake, because we all of us, especially in a case of 
 this complication, ore sure to make them — but the 
 Attorney-General, at pnge 50, in opening the case, said 
 he was under the impression that he would be able to 
 show that ]\Ir. Blake had been referred to in a speech of 
 one Griflin, and a speech of Mr. Harris. That is an 
 entire mistake. There is no such speech or any speech, 
 so far as I am aware, and certainly so far as has been 
 proved, which in any way referred to John Henry Blake, 
 Lord Clanricarde's assent. 
 
 Tlieic is one other case, and I am happy to say it is 
 the last, in this most serious story in Gaiway. I am 
 glad to say I have now come to the last, namely, the 
 nnirder of the man Finlay, near Woodford. Your Lord- 
 ships will see how many of these most shocking stories 
 cluster round tliis neighbourhood of Woodford and 
 Loughrea. He was a process-server. He was certainly 
 unpopular ; but the only connection attempted to be 
 shown Ijetween any Land League branch or any member 
 of any T^and League Ijranch is what I will now tell your 
 Lordships. It introduces the name of j\lr. John Eoche, 
 of Woodford, a man 1 am told (I think some of the 
 witnesses have said so) of respectability and a princij^al 
 citizen, if not the most important person in the town in 
 whicli he lives — a man who was a member at that time 
 of what was called by the witnesses, the " Tenants 
 Defence Association," wliicli your Lordships will recollect 
 was something existing only in this neighbourhood, and 
 something apart from the Land League, although of 
 
374 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Gaiway. coiirse ill syiiipatliy with the same ol)ject.s. 'I'lic state- 
 ment is that in December 1885, Roche nnuhi a speecli, 
 and in the course of that speech said, " They (the hmd- 
 lords) are having their Bahichiva to-day ; hut some day 
 we shall have our Fontenoy " — some such mixed high- 
 flown fio;ure as that ; and it is suoo'ested that because 
 Finlay was known by the name of " Bahiclava Finhiy," 
 that this was a denunciation of Finlay the process-server. 
 It seems a little overstrained. 
 
 Now I wish to call attention to this. The meetino- 
 
 O 
 
 was held in December 1885 ; the murder is in ]\Iareh 
 1886. There was strono- feelino; existing-, as several 
 witnesses told us, in the neighbourhood, against the 
 employment of the police at evictions, and the evidence 
 has shown that while there was, up to a comparatively 
 recent time, a friendly feeling between the people and 
 the police, that that feeling has to a great extent 
 disappeared, and a different one unfortunately taken its 
 place, since the police as a military force have been 
 employed in carrying out ejectment proceedings. 
 
 Now there was one other speecli made at that 
 meeting to which I must allude, the speech of the Ilev. 
 Mr. Egan; and as that speech was first referred to, Father 
 Egan was supposed to have said, in a murderous and 
 improper sense, that the police would soon be done 
 away with. Well, doing away with a man undoubtedly 
 is a very significant and a very serious thing to say, but 
 on cross-examination it is fair to say that ]]artliolomew 
 Coursey, who was the witness in question, himself a 
 police constable, quite candidly admitted that he did not 
 understand thelanuuao'e which he had himself deposed to 
 as having been used by Father Egan to mean anything 
 in the nature of their being done away with by improper 
 means. 
 
MURDERS 375 
 
 Pie is asked this : — Gaiway. 
 
 " Did you understand him to refer to the police 1 (A.) Yes. 
 (Q.) And did you, from the context of what he said, understand 
 him to mean that in a short time there ■\voukl be a change in the 
 government of the country] (A.) Yes. (Q,) You did not under- 
 stand that they were going to he murdered % (A.) No, certainly 
 not." 
 
 Then a. little lower down lie says tliis : — 
 
 " \Vas this meeting a meeting of the Tenants Defence Associa- 
 tion % (A.) No, it was a meeting which was got up ; tlie majority 
 of the persons were persons from the town who were not tenant 
 farmers at all. (Q.) Then how was it got up % (A.) There 
 were some jtersons about the town after the police left and Avent 
 away to their stations niter the day's ])roceedii)gs, and the first thing 
 I noticed was some persons moving al.)out the toAvn, and in a very 
 short time a small crowd assembled at that place. (Q.) There had 
 been some evictions that day? (A.) Process-serving. (<-^,.) And 
 thereupon after it a meeting gathered] (A.) Yes. (Q). Spon- 
 taneously, so to speak ? (A.) Yes, indeed. (Q.) It did not seem 
 to have been called together by anyl)ody in particular, or for any 
 particular purpose ] (A.) No. (Q,. ) A meeting of the ])eoi)le who 
 hapi)ened to be in the town at the time of the evictions ? (A.) 
 Yes. (Q.) There was a Tenants Defence Association, was there noti 
 (A.) Tliero was one at tliat time. ((^.) AVas not that association a 
 perfectly diilerent thing from the National League 1 (A.) It was. 
 (Q.) It was for the purpose of dealing with, I believe. Lord Clan- 
 ricardcl (A.) And some other landlords in that neighbourhood. 
 ((^).) rarticularly Lord Clanricarde ] (A.) Well, at that time they 
 were engnged with Sir Ilenr}' IJurke," and so on. 
 
 I therefore submit to your Lordships, first, that no 
 connection with the Land League is shown at all, and 
 next, no causal connection between this speech or 
 speeches of the character I have mentioned in December 
 1885 with the murder committed on the 3d of March 
 188G. 
 
 My Lords, I am glad to be able now to say I have 
 finished this repulsive story of the Galway murders. 
 
376 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Kerry. The iiext aiicl remaining county I have to deal witli 
 
 is Kerry. Mr. Arthur Herbert was not himself a con- 
 siderable landlord. He was a land agent, and he seems 
 to have been unpopular rather as a magistrate than as a 
 landlord or land agent. Your Lordshij^s will find the 
 evidence relating to this from page 1044 to 1137. He 
 is the person to whom was attributed the advice to the 
 police, upon some occasion of disturbance of apparently 
 not a very important character, to "skiver" them, and 
 hence came to be known by the name of '' Skiver 'em 
 Herbert." Now, what is the connection here suo-o-ested? 
 The story is this. A man called Donoghue was evicted ; 
 his house was levelled to the ground ; and this is one 
 of the things in connection with evictions which rouses 
 the resentment of the people more than anything else, 
 because even when they are actually turned out of tlieir 
 holdings, the hope does not leave them that they may 
 be able with the assistance of tlieir friends to make terms 
 to get back again into possession of their holdings. In 
 this case all hope apparently of that was shut out 
 by the fact that upon the occasion of the eviction, the 
 house which the tenant himself, in all probability, or 
 his predecessor, or his father before him, had built, was 
 levelled to the ground. 
 
 Now, what is the connection here suggested ? A 
 meeting was held on the 6tli June 1881 (the murder 
 being the 13th March 1882 — nine months later) at 
 Knocknabull, at which there was a reference by one of 
 the speakers, Curten, to Mr. Herbert, and in which 
 there was also a reference to him by the Uev. j\lr. 
 O'Riordan. The reference, I tliink, that Curten makes 
 is of a very cursory kind. There was an exclamation by 
 the crowd, "Oh, Herbert;" but Mr. Curten apparently 
 had not mentioned his name. 
 
MURDERS 277 
 
 The Rev. Mr. O'Kiordan unquestionably makes a Kerry. 
 strong speech. I do not at all hesitate to say so. He 
 speaks of Mr. Herbert as living away from them, and 
 not taking part in their troubles, and so on, amongst 
 them. 1 nni about to refer your Lordships to pages 
 3GC), 3G7, and 3G8. He used, I quite admit, very strong 
 languaiie in condemnation of what he believes or 
 supposes to be the improper conduct of ]\Ir. Herbert. 
 
 He then goes on to say : — 
 
 " Is tlicrofore Mr. A. Herbert to be allowed to conic in here and 
 break uj) tlie homes of these poor people, and cast them adrift on 
 the waves of the world 1 I say he will not. We will not insult 
 him, Ave will not ofTer him violence, we will not do him the smallest 
 injury. The man that would go now and offer him insult, or do 
 him the smallest injury, would be the greatest enemy we have. A 
 man said to me that ]\lr. Arthur Herbert, after what is said of him 
 to-day, will go and get a rick of straw of his burned, or do something 
 else. Now, 1 say any man who Avould do that man an injury, you 
 should treat him as your greatest enemy. Leave him to us, and 
 leave that village tyrant to us, and if Mr. Forster does not arrest 
 him — (Cheers) — I say speaking seriously from my heart, speaking 
 the sentiments of my heart to you, I say if that man ever comes 
 before them disturbing the peace, for breaking up the homes of 
 the people, 1 say that man has as good a right to be put in jail as 
 many a man that is in it." 
 
 I'liat form of expression, of a man having as good a 
 right to be put in jail, is an Irish form of expression 
 which your Lordships may have heard before. It is not 
 a right a num is likely to exercise. Then he proceeds : — 
 
 "I say to you, leave that village tyrant to us, and we will keep 
 an eye to him, and if we possibly can, we will guard you against 
 him if there is any liberty in Ireland. I ask you all to do this; the 
 pul)lic in every town and village, and mark you, you are the public ; 
 
 that if Mr. Arthur Herbert comes to [name not distinctly heard] 
 
 to serve wiits and create disorder to the public, that Ave Avill by 
 every lawful means endeavour to make him a remarkable man m 
 
378 " THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Kerry. the country. (Cheers.) I will also ask you to tell every one that 
 you meet, that no man must do him the slightest injury, that no man 
 must insult him, that no man should offer him any violence, and that 
 the man that would suggest it, that that man is the friend of Mr. 
 Arthur Herbert, and is an enemy to you, and to your cause. Now ye 
 will all promise me to do that. Will you promise that you will leave 
 him in our hands ; we promise you that in that case that if we can, 
 that we will endeavour to stop his course of licentious disorder in this 
 district, at all events ; and I think it is very likely we will succeed." 
 
 Then on page 369, lie appears to have made some 
 general observations about outrage, and then he goes 
 on thus : — 
 
 " 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. Stand together. 
 Lot no landlord or his agent or friend cajole you or frighten you. 
 Be loyal to one another. Keep firmly and unflinchingly the rules 
 of the Land League to which you all belong. AVork on the lines 
 it lays down for 3'ou, and I tell you that no injustice can stand 
 against you. And let no man say that the laljourer will not be 
 provided for. The labourer will be provided for, and must be 
 provided for as well as the farmer. And to use the words of one 
 whose name I know is Avorshipjied among you, the champion of 
 peace, and the champion of the people, the great Archbishop of 
 Cashel. (Cheers.) He said, 'If you work peaceably and firndy 
 together, q\o\j young man to do what is right, you will yet become 
 a happy and prospei'ous and contented people.'" 
 
 It is, my Lords, a strong speech ; but I say, and I 
 must put it with all seriousness aud all gravity to youi- 
 Lordships, whether you approve of it or do not a])prove 
 of it, can it be truly said that that is a speech inciting 
 to murder or outrage ? It is impossible to say so ; and 
 I again call attention to the sequence of dates. This 
 speech was made on the Gth June 1881 ; the outrage in 
 question on the 30th March 1882. But, my Lords, 
 what follows this occurrence ? On the 30th March, the 
 
MURDERS . 379 
 
 (lay of the murder, or the day after the murder, unques- Kerry, 
 tioiiably, again the demeanour of the people was Lad, I 
 quite agree. There was some reference to it, I think, in 
 tlie papers, of a denunciatory kind. I do not know that 
 they are very important to be read in this connection. 
 But, again, I point out that this murder, like the 
 majority of tlie murders, occurred at a time when many 
 of the local leaders and all tlie central leaders were in 
 prison, namely, in March 1882, and after the Land 
 League therefore was suppressed. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, the next case is a very short case, and I 
 may perhaps finish it before your Lordships rise. It 
 occurred on the 8tli of June, in tlie neighbourhood of 
 Castleisland, the case of Cornelius Hickey. There is 
 not very much in the evidence. It begins at page 904. 
 The account of the case given in the evidence is of the 
 faintest and most shadowy kind. There is really no 
 important evidence upon the subject. There appears to 
 have been a family cpiarrel ; but Cornelius Hickey 
 seems to have been on perfectly good terms with his 
 neighbours. The Attorney - General in his opening 
 at page 98, said that the reason of this crime being 
 committed on this person was that he was a land- 
 gral)ber. I will not say there is no suggestion of it, 
 l)ut 1 do not find in the evidence anything to justify that 
 statement ; and in connection with it the same thing 
 occurred, which occurred in the last two cases I have 
 mentioned, namely, undoul)tedly a want of sympathy 
 shown with the family of the murdered man ; because 
 when he was aftcn'wards broug-ht into the house of Daniel 
 Ilickcy there was posted, l)y some person or other, a 
 notice practically boycotting or threatening witli boy- 
 cotting Daniel Hickey for receiving this man who was 
 then wounded. It is bad and condennlable I need not 
 
38o ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Kerry. say ill the highest degree ; hut I do, in this connection, 
 remind your Lordships that there appeared in the Kerry 
 Sentinel, on two different days — on the 9th June, and I 
 think also on the 7th July — strong condemnations of 
 this murder. I am loath at tliis point to trouble your 
 Lordships by reading these in detail if unnecessary. Your 
 Lordships will find them at page 1)08. I understand 
 only one of them is a denunciation ; there is a passing 
 reference in one and a strong denunciation in the other. 
 The next case is that of Daniel Leahy, Scarteen, 
 Killarney, who met his death at the hands of a moon- 
 light party — this is common ground — in his own house, 
 on the 2d of August 1882. There is no connection 
 even suggested, in the evidence, between the Land 
 League, or any members of the Land League, and this 
 unhaj^py occurrence. The only cause for this murder 
 suggested is to be found in the speech of the Attorney- 
 General in his opening at page 99, where he alleges that 
 Leahy was holding an evicted farm, on the property of 
 Lord Kenmare, but when the evidence is looked at, it 
 will be seen that this fact even does not appear, and 
 that all he appears to have done was to take some 
 grazing upon the estate of Lord Kenmare. I am 
 glad to say in this case, fortunately unlike some of 
 the others, that I have menti(^ned, there was the 
 greatest sympathy shown to the family of this man 
 after his death. Ilis wake and funeral were largely 
 attended, and I read to your Lordships, at the time, 
 from the Kerry Sentinel of the 22d of August 1882 
 what, I take leave to say, was not only a strong, earnest, 
 but most touching appeal to the people of the county of 
 Kerry to exert themselves to save future disgrace to 
 their county. This murder, like most of those that I 
 have hitherto dealt with, occurred in August 1882, jifter 
 
MURDERS 
 
 381 
 
 the suppression of the Land League, which had taken Kerry, 
 phicc in 1881, and before the foundation of the National 
 League, which was in October 1882. 
 
 Tlie next case, my Lords, is the case of Brown of 
 Drumulty, in the neighbourhood of Castleisland, wlio 
 met liis death on the 3d of October 1882. In this case 
 tlierc was a suggestion, made by the Attorney-General, in 
 his opening at page 96, to connect this outrage with a 
 s[teech delivered by the Rev. A. Murpliy at Carrow on 
 the nth of September 1881. I point out, to begin with, 
 tliat the speech, even if it had referred to this man, was 
 one, as tlie dates show, delivered 13 months before the 
 man's death. But, my Lords, that is not all. The 
 Attorney-General was mistaken, because the man alluded 
 to in that speech was called before you as a witness in 
 til is incpiiry, and tlierefore was not the victim of this 
 atrocious outrage. Your Lordsliips will find his evidence 
 at page 11 50. Of the facts of this murder, apart from 
 this, no evidence has been laid before your Lordships. 
 This also occurred in tliat period between the suppression 
 of tlie Land League and the institution of tlie National 
 League. There was no quarrel suggested with the 
 League, or with any members of the League, or with 
 those who had been members of the League. There 
 was no boycotting alleged or suggested, and two men, 
 Poff and Barrett, were, as your Lordships recollect, 
 hauiied for this crime. One of those men was a neish- 
 bour of Brown. The other was not known and was not 
 a neighbour ; but neither was shown to have had any con- 
 nection with the League, or the victim of this outrage. 
 Brown was not shown to have been referred to, directly 
 or indirectly, at any meeting. There was an impression 
 undoulitedly widely entertained that these men, Poff 
 and Barrett, were not guilty, although found guilty and 
 
382 ^' THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Kerry. liaiiged ; and it appears on the evidence (as your Lord- 
 ships will find at pages 1176-7) that they left behind 
 them written declarations of their innocence. To that, 
 and to the existence of that general belief in their 
 innocence, the witness who spoke was District Inspector 
 Rice, whose evidence your Lordslnps will find at page 
 1174. I only allude to that matter in passing, because 
 it v/ill have to be referred to probably in the course of 
 the evidence of one of the members of Parliament who 
 will be called before your Lordships, I mean Mr. John 
 O'Connor, who, as I understand, desires to give some 
 explanation of the conduct wdiich is attributed to him. I 
 do not know whether your Lordships recall the circum- 
 stances — of course it is quite a side issue, and does not 
 go to the vital part of the case — the conduct attributed 
 to him on the occasion of certain prisoners being brought 
 to Cork to be tried, and on their way from the railway 
 station to the prison. ]\Iy Lords, I leave that case. I 
 say there has been no attempt to connect the Land 
 League, and no connection shown. 
 
 The next is a very sad case — in fact, the two next 
 cases, with which I practically conclude this painful story 
 ■ — I mean the case of Curtin. Now, I first say as regards 
 this case (and if I am wrong in it I shall be glad to be 
 corrected by my friend) that I do not understand that 
 the murder of this poor man John Curtin has even been 
 classified in the police returns as an agrarian murder. 
 If I am wrong in that, I shall be glad to have correction 
 upon it. I think the circumstances will make it 
 apparent, when they are considered, that it was not an 
 agrarian murder in the sense in which these words are 
 understood, namely, that it did not involve any agrarian 
 dispute in relation to land. My Lords, the story is this. 
 John Curtin was a man well known and respected in his 
 
MURDERS 383 
 
 neiglibourliood. He was vice-president of the National Kerry. 
 League himself. His sons, one of whom w^as called 
 before your Lordsliips, were also members of that 
 Leaouc. He had no (juarrel of any kind with the 
 Leaofue, or with any members of the League. Your 
 Lordships will fuid the facts gone into in relation to 
 that question of tlieir position at pages 929 and 934. 
 What happened was this ; a moonlighting party had 
 on a previous occasion, that is to say, previous to 
 November 1885, visited his house, making a raid for 
 arms, an<l had got a gun from him. Tliey appear 
 afterwards to have learned that he had still some 
 firearms left, and on the 13th November 1885, pre- 
 sumal)ly the same ])arty, or at least some of the same 
 party — perha})s with others, I know not — but all shown 
 to liave l)eeii young men, the sous of ncighlK)urs, again 
 visited the liouse. Tliey, 1 tliiidc there can be no doubt, 
 visited the liouse for a similar ol)ject, and what happened 
 was tliis ; that wlien they appeared and made their 
 demand, Joliii Curtin himself, as deposed by his 
 daughter Lizzie Curtin — your Lordships will find her 
 admission to me on cross-examination at page 928 — 
 John Curtin, standing on the stairs of his own house, 
 mid looking towards the door, which had then been 
 opened or burst open, fired the first shot at the attacking 
 party, and the efi'ect of that first sliot was to kill the lad, 
 for he was no more tliaii a lad, known by the name of 
 Tim Sullivan. Thereupon it was — I need not say I am 
 not defending it, I am not extenuating it, I am explaining 
 it — thereupon it was that the attacking party shot back, 
 — with the sad and deplorable result that Curtin, a per- 
 fectly respectable and harmless man, met with his death. 
 That was tlie true story, my Lords, of the fate of John 
 Curtin. In the examination of Captain Llunkett it was 
 
384 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Kerry. suggested that he had been referred to in a speech made 
 some weeks before by Father O'Connor of Fieries, on 
 the occasion of a sale of cattle by the sheriff ; he was 
 not named, and nothing of a denunciatory character was 
 said. He had at that time paid his rent ; his neigh- 
 bours, many of them, had done the same ; and again I 
 repeat, that in view of the circumstances of the case, the 
 authorities have not, as I understand — the inspector- 
 general, I think, is the functionary — in view of all the 
 circumstances of the case, have not classified this, 
 and if the account I have been giving is correct, could 
 not classify this, as an agrarian crime. 
 
 But, my Lords, undoubtedly circumstances followed 
 that murder of a grievously condemnable kind. There 
 is not the least doubt that a want of sympathy was 
 shown by many of his neighbours. What did the 
 prominent members of the League do ? Mr. Alfred 
 Webb, a member of the central body in Dublin at tliat 
 time — probably at this time, I know not, treasurer of 
 the Leaoue — went down himself to the neiohbourhood 
 to remonstrate with the people. He did more ; he 
 wrote and printed a circular for distribution in the neigh- 
 bourhood. Mr. Davitt went down. It was flung with 
 some kind of reproach at Mr. Davitt that he had not 
 gone to visit the family of the Curtins ; he did not 
 know the family of the Curtins. He thought he was 
 serving the object of his visit best, by addressing the 
 people from whom this heartless conduct was ])roceeding, 
 and he used such energy and zeal as he possessed to 
 discountenance it, and to turn them from that want of 
 sympathy. Another member of the League, and a 
 member of Parliament, Mr. John O'Connor, who knew 
 the Curtins, went down and visited them, expressed his 
 sympathy with them, and did all he could to alter the 
 
MURDERS 385 
 
 feelings of tlic people in regard to tlie family ; and on Keny. 
 the Sunday after the murder the Rev. Father Murphy 
 made a speech in strong terms- — 1 do not know whether 
 it was a speech or a sermon — in strong denunciatory 
 terms, not merely of the murder itself, but of the 
 conduct of tlie peo[)le in regard to it. And all the local 
 hianches of the League in that neighbourhood, including 
 those at Kieries, at Kilorglin, and at Ballyhard, passed 
 resolutions in tlie stronOT-st condemnation of it. 
 
 My Lords, I come, I am glad to sny, to the last of 
 these Kerry cases — in some resjjects the most serious — 
 I mean the case of James Fitzmaurice, who was shot on 
 the road to Listowel Fair wdien accompanied by his 
 daughter, who Avas called before your Lordshij^s, and 
 whose evidence Avill be found at pages 944 and 955. 
 Your Lordships will understand that I am not doing 
 UKn-e than explaining the circumstances, as they are put 
 before you, of this story, James Fitzmaurice was a co- 
 tenant with his brother Edmund Fitzmaurice on certain 
 lands. They were both tenants. I do not recollect the 
 landlord's name, but tenants under a landlord whose 
 agent was Mr. Samuel Hussey. The statement was that 
 tliere had been an eviction, designed for the purpose of 
 giving all the land, including the part which belonged 
 to and had been held by Edmund Fitzmaurice and his 
 family, to his brother James Fitzmaurice ; and James 
 Fitzmaurice appears to have been a consenting party to 
 that course. There were two farmhouses upon the pro- 
 perty, and after the eviction James Fitzmaurice alone 
 remained, and Edmund Fitzmaurice and his family were . 
 tlu'owu out. What happened to them ? I refer your 
 Lordships particularly to page 95 L They were taken 
 in, Edmund Fitzmaurice and, I think, some of his family, 
 were taken in for mere shelter, upon the impulse of a 
 
 2 c 
 
386 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Kerry. commoii feeling of charity, by a neigliboiir named 
 Costello. Tiie only alternative they had open to them 
 was the workhonse. And what was the conduct pnr- 
 sued in the case of Costello, whose only offence was that 
 he had given shelter to this homeless man ? My Lords, 
 he had, in the difficult times in which he was circum- 
 stanced, apparently made an honest effort to pay his 
 rent ; but although he had paid a year's rent, and al- 
 though he was owing only a gale of rent, he was served 
 with legal process at the instance of Mr. Hussey for no 
 other offence suggested, for no other offence that I am aware 
 of can be suggested, except that he had given shelter to 
 this evicted man. And your l^ordships will find that the 
 resolution of the Lixnaw branch of the Nationrd League, 
 which condemns James Fitzmaurice for his grabbing, as 
 it is called, and his inhuman conduct to his brother, 
 mentioned that name and his conduct almost, I may say, 
 incidentally, for the main condemnation of the resolu- 
 tion, and its main purposes are directed to the condem- 
 nation of what is supposed to have been and — if the 
 facts be as I have said — was, the cruel, the harsh, and 
 the unjustifiable conduct of Mr. Hussey. 
 
 My Lords, at page 948 your Lordships will find that 
 resolution in full. This is the record from the Kerry 
 Sentinel of the '28th October 1887, of the Lixnaw l)rancli 
 of the National League : — 
 
 "The case of Edmuml Costello was tlieii taken up, and evoked con- 
 siderable interest. The following are the particulars as stated by Mr. 
 Costello : On the 1st of October he and others attended Mr. liussey's 
 otHce in compliance with notice for })aynient of rent ; he demanded an 
 abatement of 25 percent, but Mr. Ilussey would only give 15 per cent. 
 Mr. Costello declined to pay on these terms, and in the course of an 
 argument which ensued Mr. Hussey said he " [that is, Mr. Costello, I 
 presume] "was the source of great annoyance to him by the Avay in 
 which he was harbouring and encouraging Ednunid Fitzmaurice (an 
 
MURDERS 387 
 
 evicted tenant). Fitzniaurice was evicted in May last, and Mr. Kerry. 
 Costcllo has ever since sliared his own roof with him, and given 
 liini every assistance in his power. He paid no rent on that day, 
 Init in the conrse of a few days he Avas served witli a writ, and thus 
 imt to considerable cost. He is fully convinced that it is in revenge 
 for the kindness he is shoAving Edmund Fitzmaurice that the writ 
 Avas served npon him. Fitzmaurice's land had been grabbed by his 
 brother .ranios Fitzmaurice, and Mr. Hussey and James Fitzmaurice 
 are anxious to have him out of the Avay. Then Mr. Costello Avas 
 highly ap[)Iaude(l for his kindness to Edmund Fitzmaurice, and the 
 fiilldAving rcsohition Avas passed: — 'Resolved — That Ave hereby record 
 oiu' most indignant protest against the despotic and basely vindictive 
 .'K'tion of J\lr. 8. M. Hussey in serving a Avrit on Mr. Eugene Costello 
 for one gale of rent, the sole cause for this infamous proceeding 
 being that I\Ir. Costello has kindly alforded shelter to an evicted 
 tenant, M Fitzmaurice ; and Ave again call upon the public to mark 
 by every constitutional means their disapprobation of the conduct of 
 James Fitzmaurice, Avho has been so base and inhuman as to grab 
 his brothers land." 
 
 ]\Iy Lords, there is tlie whole story, as it was told at 
 that Land League meeting ; and if those facts be as they 
 are represented, I say it is not remarkable that strong 
 language should have been used, 1 cannot doubt the 
 people who did use that strong language, although they 
 thought they had justification for using it at the time, 
 must now regret it, because if that language had not 
 caused, it was followed by, a very sad event. It was 
 suggested by the Attorney-General, in his opening at 
 page 316, that in this case the alleged murderers were 
 defcnd(Ml by and at the expense of the League. I am 
 instructed that that is not so ; but it is enough for me 
 to say that although the solicitor who was defending 
 them, namely, Mr. Creigh, was in the box, no question Defence of 
 pointing to that conclusion was even put to him, and your 
 Lordships will recollect the evidence of a solicitor from 
 a diilerent district altogether, who, as I understand, has 
 
''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE 
 
 Defence of Stated, aiicl stated correctly, tlie fact — I mean tlie evi- 
 dence of Mr. Tiglie, also the evidence of Mr. Daley — one 
 or other, or Ijoth of those, have stated that in truth the 
 Land League, while defending many persons, did not, as 
 far as the experience of one or both of these gentlemen 
 were concerned, and they had frequently acted for them, 
 interfere in any cases of murder at all. Now, my 
 Lords, one word more about this. 
 
 (The President) That is not quite my recollec^tion 
 about his evidence. I understood he had said he de- 
 fended the murderers, but he did not have any direct 
 communication with them. 
 
 (Sir C. Russell) What he did say was — I can refer 
 your Lordships to it in a moment, if it is imp(jrtant — 
 but what he did say was, that he did defend the men, 
 but not at the instance of the Land League. That in 
 all those cases the instructions always came from the 
 members of the family and the neighbours ; that is my 
 impression, but we can easily refer to it later on, and 
 bring it out. 
 
 My Lords, two men were hanged for this nuirder — 
 Hayes and Moriarty : one of them from Tralee, one of 
 them from Glenbeigh, neither of them sliown to be 
 Land Leaguers or National Leaguers. At page 95:2 
 your Lordships will find that the witness called for the 
 prosecution spoke to the strong feeling in the neighbour- 
 hood about the matter, and of the impression that the 
 murder was the result of this family dispute. And, 
 again, I have to call attention to the fact that in the 
 Kevrij Sentinel of the 31st January, and in United 
 Ireland also, or reprinted from United Ireland, I am 
 not sure which, but I think in both, there was a strong 
 condemnation of this atrocious murder. 
 
 I would wish to make one comment upon this. If 
 
MURDERS 389 
 
 it were true, as it seems upon the wliole consideration Defence of 
 of tliis matter to liave been, that the conduct pursued 
 towards Costello was based upon the fact, or mainly 
 Ijased upon the fact, tliat he gave shelter to an evicted 
 tenant, tliere was notliing that could have excited more 
 strongly the feeling of the Irish people. 
 
 ]\Iy T;ords, there are mauy sad stories that could be 
 told before your Lordships of estate rules, which made it 
 something like a capital offence to harbour the family, 
 or any of the members of tlie family, who had been 
 evicted I'rom a ht)ldiiig on an estate. I can refer your 
 Ijordsliips, not to the excited language of politicians or 
 of so-called agitators, but 1 can refer your Lordships to 
 tlie grave and dignified language of one of the most 
 humane judges who ever sat on the l)ench — I mean the 
 late C'liief Bai"on Pioott. I thoui'ht I had the reference 
 ]i(Mc at the moment, l)ut I can give it to your Lordships. 
 \n trying a case in tliis very county of Kerry, where a 
 woman was chartred with manslauixliter, he describes a 
 case wliicli recalls the incidents of Costello's. The 
 ■woman was charged with manslaughter, and the Chief 
 r)aron is stating the facts to the jury. AVhat were 
 they? A family had been evicted, neighbours of the 
 woman in the dock, and of that family a boy of tender 
 years came shelterless to his friend for protection. 
 With tlie dread of the rule on that estate before her, 
 this woman, with fear and trembling, drove the child 
 from her door. Wlien tlie night came on he returned 
 again to seek vshelter. This time she repelled him again, 
 and not with words merely, l)ut with blows, and closed 
 the door upon him. The morning came ; that child was 
 l'()und stark dead lying at the threshold. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, I will make only one general ol)scrvation 
 now on the story of these murders. Your Lordships 
 
390 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 Defence of will piobaljly allow me jnst to break the thread of my 
 observations by following the point which your Lord- 
 ships just now suggested. I am referring to the 
 evidence of Daley, which I had principally in my 
 mind, at page 2404, where, referring to some persons 
 whom he defended, he was asked : — 
 
 " You defended them all % — Yes. (The President) You gave an 
 answer which I took down in these terms : I did not connnunicate 
 with the Land League in murder cases. Did you say that % — Yt!s ; 
 I did not communicate with the Land League in nuirder cases. (<^>.) 
 I wanted to know the meaning of that. (A.) The meaning of that 
 is this : I received no direct instructions through any person at tlie 
 head of tlie Land League in nuirder cases. I do not Itelieve tliey 
 knew anything about those murder cases. I believe that tlicy Avere 
 the outburst of other land agitation. I do not believe any head of 
 the Land League knew anything about those murder cases in the 
 west of Ireland. (The Attorney-Ceneral) I Avant just to understand. 
 Perhaps my Lord will put the question. To whom did you send 
 the bills in those murder cases 1 (A.) I sent them to the Land 
 League office. I received general instructions to defend all classes 
 of cases, and acting on those instructions, whether tiiose cases came 
 under this particular head or not, I defended all the cases." 
 
 (The President) That is what I had in my mind. 
 (Sir C. Russell) There are only two sentences more. 
 
 " (Mr. Justice A. L. Smith) From whom did you receive the 
 instructions % (A.) Generally from some of the local members of the 
 League. (Q.) Did you receive instructions to defend the murders 
 from local members of the League? (A.) The people themselves 
 invariably came, or their friends came to me from prison, and sent 
 to me or wi'ote to me. I could not swear. I am not aware that 
 any of the local members of the Land League were associated with 
 murder." [I think that should be " with murder cases," I am not 
 sure.] " (The President) That is not quite the point. I understand 
 you did not communicate, and had no communication, with tiie 
 League on the subject of murder cases. (A.) None, my Lord. I 
 took them up as I had taken up the other cases. I took them up 
 on the general instructions I received." 
 
XVII DISTRESS AND CRIME 391 
 
 Now, my Lords, I would first remind your Lord- Distress 
 sliips, tlijit, although this distressing story cannot but ''"'^ ^""'®" 
 make an impression on one's mind, you have in its 
 consideration gathered into a definite point, and into a 
 definite and continuous narration, serious crime extend- 
 ing over four counties, and over a period of ten years. 
 
 I have already, in the history of this case, endeavoured 
 to make good the projiosition that after recurrent distress 
 you had recurrent crime ; and I think I have made good 
 that proposition l)y showing that at former periods, 
 wlien there was no organisation, general or local, that 
 there litul l^een an access of crime, in greater volume 
 and much more serious, than during the period which 
 your Lordships are engaged in considering. 
 
 1 dou1)t if any ten years — a })eriod of distress, or 
 cinl)in('ing years of distress to tlie same extent — could be 
 selected in the wliole history of crime which presents 
 on the wliole, as regards serious crime, a less formidable 
 catalogue than this. 
 
 Your Lordsliips cannot fail to have ol)served that 
 the mcjst serious crimes in tlieir character, the greatest 
 in their number, and the most regrettable in the circum- 
 stances attending u])on them — I mean in relation to the 
 attitude of the people — are connected with or have 
 taken place in and about this district of Loughrea and 
 AVoodford. 
 
 My Lords, there were special circumstances of 
 aggravation and excitement existing there. I will not 
 use my own language to describe it. I will use the 
 liuiguage of another chief baron (Chief Laron Pallas) 
 and I will cite the language from The Times newspaper 
 of the 8tli December 1887. lie says :— 
 
 " Wlmt would liavo been the result of granting a reasonable j'^^J.^^j 
 reduction ? It would have avoided eviction from tlieir little homes; Pallas. 
 
392 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvii 
 
 it would have avoided the unfortunate and painful prosecution of 
 these unhappy tenants. He was not sure, having regai'd to the 
 circumstances disclosed in the hearing of this case, tliat Lord 
 Clanricarde Avas in the habit of looking at the affairs of mankind as 
 other people did. It appeared to him that Lord Clanricarde took 
 a more exaggerated view of his own rights than other peojjle, and 
 perhaps took a more erroneous view than others did of the moral 
 though not legal duty arising between himself and his tenants. 
 What did happen upon this estate ? There had occurred that 
 Avhich had aroused the indignation of the empire, or a great deal 
 of it." 
 
 And I ask your Lordships' attention to this : — 
 
 " It was such that the Chief Secretary (Sir Michael Beach) luul 
 intervened, and gone so far as to refuse the forces of the Crown, 
 the forces of the law, when by law he was bound to supply those 
 forces in order to carry out the behests of Lord Clanricarde. The 
 responsible officer of the Crown had refused the forces of the 
 Crown unless Lord Clanricarde, Avho had refused the supplications 
 of the tenants and of their pastors, consented to give an abatement 
 such as other landlords gave." 
 
 My Lords, coidd tliere Le a graver statement tlian 
 that ? As Chief Jiaron Palhis truly states, an executive 
 minister is bound to render the assistance of the executive 
 authority to carry out the civil decree of the land. If 
 he fails to do so, he exposes himself to the risk of im- 
 peachment by Parliament, and it is only the most grave 
 necessity and gravest cause which could justify the 
 withholding of those powers ; but they were withheld. 
 
XVIII. 
 "THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 
 
 My Lords, I now pass to the consideration of the 
 evidence, so far as it is supposed to relate or to point Evidence 
 to any niemljcrs of Parliament. I have to draw your iHsir 
 Lordships' attention— I do not know whether it will ^''°'''''- 
 strike your Lordsliij)s as it strikes me and strikes my 
 friends— to a very remarkable state of things. In the 
 schedule given by the prosecution there are altogether 
 the names of G5 members of Parliament, and of four 
 other persons — I think, in fact, live — but four or five 
 otlier persons not meml)crs of Parliament. Aly Lords, I 
 will read tlie names of 28 of these. I might read a great 
 many more ; and I will ask your Lordships, have you any 
 impression on your minds at this moment of a particle of 
 evidence against any one of them ? I might extend the 
 
 list. Mr. J. R. Cox. Mr. F. A. O'Kecfe. 
 
 INIr. Jeremiah Jordan. Mr. Justin M'Cartliy. 
 
 Mr. J. E. O'Doheriy. Mr. Joseph Nolan. 
 
 Mr. Michael M'Cartan. Uv. Thomas P. Gill. 
 
 Mr. J. J. Clancy. Mr. Daniel Crilly. 
 
 Mr. Henry Campbell Mr. James F. O'Brien. 
 
 (except the letters). j\Jr. Richard Lalor. 
 
 ]\lr. John Stack. Mr. Andrew Commins. 
 
 Mr. Denis Killnide. INIr Edmund Leamy. 
 
 ]\Ir. James Leahy. Mr. Matthew J. Kenny. 
 
 Mr. Patrick C. Chance. ]\Ir. Patrick J. Power. 
 
 Mr. Thomas Quiini. ]\Ir. James Tuite. 
 
 Dr. J. F. Fox. iMr. Daniel Sullivan. 
 
 Mr. Michael Conway. Mr. Garrett M. Byrne. 
 I\Ir. L. P. Hnyden. 
 
394 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 My Lords, is tliere in your Ijordsliips' minds at this 
 present moment a particle of evidence against any one 
 of those whom I have mentioned ? Not a particle. ]\ly 
 Lords, I might, as I have said, amplify the list. I have 
 not included in this first list, of the number of 28 
 or 29, the names I am about to give, because it may 
 be suggested that their names have been mentioned 
 in the course of the evidence. With regard to Mr. 
 William Abraham. Does your Lordship recollect the 
 evidence of the man Coffey ? Well, my Lords, it is 
 very difficult to recall. Pie was one of the tribe of sup- 
 posed informers. I was not here myself at the time, but he 
 was supposed, in some statement he gave to some repre- 
 sentative of The Times, to have made some most griev- 
 ous statements respecting Mr. AVilliam Abraham, wlioni 
 your Lordships will see before you, and whom I have 
 the pleasure of knowing pretty well, and respecting Mr. 
 Finucane, a suggestion of the most atrocious kind, whi('h 
 when he came into the box he did not venture to sup- 
 port. Your Lordships committed him to prison, as I 
 understand, for the improper way in which he com2:)orted 
 himself in this court. 
 
 ' Mr. I. J. Condon. Mr. J. E. Kenny. 
 
 Mr. John Dillon. Mr. W. J. Lane. 
 
 Mr. John Deasy. Mr. Thomas Mayne. 
 
 Sir Thomas Esmonde. Mr. William O'Brien. 
 
 Mr. John Finucane. INlr. O'Hea. 
 
 Mr. P. J. Foley. Mr. William Redmoml 
 Mr. J. C. Flynn. (excepting the distrilm- 
 
 Mr. Gilhooly. tion of the " No Eent 
 
 Mr. T. M. Healy. Manifesto "). 
 
 Mr. Edward Harrington. Mr. John Ivedmond. 
 
 Mr. J. Hooper. INIr. D. Slieehy. 
 
 Mr. Maurice Healy. Mr. Thomas Sexton. 
 
 My Lords, if this were an ordinary case I could treat 
 
xviii AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 395 
 
 it witli tlie most utter contempt, and boldly ask your 
 Lordships whether there was as against any one of those 
 men I have mentioned two-thirds of the whole number 
 sclieduled, whether tliere was against any of these 
 men any evidence wortliy of the name. I would wish 
 to qualify, because I desire to be literally accurate in 
 this. I am reminded properly that in the case of Mr. 
 Condon, altliough this is aw\ay from any vital question 
 in the case, or from any of the charges or nllegations in 
 these libels, that Mr. Condon is supposed to have nuide 
 a most wicked statement, namely, that on the occasion 
 of some person going to his place of business — Mitchell, 
 1 think — that he said to Mitchell, had he been there, in- 
 stead of getting what he desired to purchase, he would 
 have got the knife. He will a])pear before your Lordships, 
 ill that particular 1 need uot point out, though it was a 
 most atrocious thing to be said, it is not in the charges and 
 allegations which youi' Lordships are here inquiring into. 
 Your Lordships luivc ]>ractical]y nothing to do with it. 
 
 One more observation of a more or less general kind 
 I should like to make. A good part of the case, such as 
 it is, presented by the prosecution has consisted in the 
 reading of a great nundjcr of s]ieeches, some good, some 
 l)ad, some indifferent, some really condemnable, but I 
 am glad to say the number in this latter category is 
 small, and, with few exce[)tions, none of them marked 
 by a very high degree of wisdom in their utterance; but 
 against 30 meml)ers of Pai'liament, including some that 
 1 have mentioned to your Lordships, and [ will not 
 troul)le to reiterate the names, there has been no speech 
 at all put in, and I shall examine later any speech to 
 which any serious importance whatever is attached ; but 
 I make this broad statement that, so far as the members 
 of Parliament are concerned, I cannot recall any speech 
 
396 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 attributed to any of them wliich any man judicially 
 inclined, or trying even judiciously to apply his mind to 
 the consideration of the question, could say, from the 
 beginning to the end, was a direct incitement to outrage 
 of any kind. There are some speeches particularly bad 
 and reprehensible. I mean the speeches of such a man 
 
 Sciab as Scrab Nally — about whom your Lordships will hear 
 ^ ^' something — who has been made a hero of by the Attor- 
 ney-General, whose fame has spread far and wide 
 because of the prominence given to him in this case. 
 Your Lordships will hear his true position, and the way 
 in which he is regarded, from several witnesses. I think 
 your Lordships will have already gathered the im- 
 pression that this person was regarded as a joke, but, I 
 must say, a very ugly kind of joke. 
 
 Speeches of one other man have been referred to, a 
 
 Tuiiy. man called Tully, who seems to have made undoubtedly 
 speeches capable of grievous misconstruction and of evil 
 meaning, but a man who, as far as I know, is not shown 
 to have done any act or to have associated in any act 
 that is reprehensible, besides these foolish and really con- 
 demnable speeches. 
 
 The My Lords, one other general observation I will 
 
 puUu^^^ make. The, Times have put in, speaking in round 
 numbers, but I think I am approximately accurate, 440 
 speeches. Enough in all conscience ! But this is 
 remarkable, that from Octolier 1881, the date of the 
 suppression of the Land League, down to the end of 
 1882, the formation of the National League, the i)eriod 
 worst in crime and outrage as 1^ have already demon- 
 strated, they have put in two speeches, and two s})eeciies 
 only, over that whole period, and neither of them is a 
 speech of a member of Parliament at all. I beg your 
 Lordships' pardon, one is a speech of a member of 
 
 Evidence. 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 397 
 
 Parliament. Those two speeches are the speeelies of the 
 llev. Mr. Iliggins at Slianauglilish, County Galway, on 
 tlie 12th of March 1882, and the other is the speech of 
 Mr. William Ivcdmond at Ennis, County Clare, on the 
 12th November 1882. So that while a great part of the 
 stress of the case urged by the Attorney-General has 
 l)een on the evil eifect produced by these exciting 
 s[)eeclies, over the period which wns marked by the 
 greatest crime and outrage, two and only two have been 
 relied upon. 
 
 I do not recall either of them ; I do not know 
 whether they were at all important — I believe not. 
 Now, my Lords, I come to the consideration of the 
 evidence, and I think it will be convenient to take the 
 evidence against four or five persons who are not before 
 your Lordships' coujt, but who are included in the list 
 scheduled, and those persons are Sheridan, Byrne, Boyton, 
 Brennan, and Egan ; and I will take them in that order. 
 
 Your Lordships will, of course, understand that in 
 addition to the members of Parliament I have men- 
 tioned, there is Mr. Michael Ijavitt, who is appearing 
 here and representing himself. 
 
 I will first of all take P. J. Sheridan. P. J. p. j. 
 Sheridan, my Lords, I must deal with, and am ^'''"'''"• 
 proposing to deal with, upon the evidence as 
 it is at present bel<»re your Lordships, which is the 
 course I have in the main pursued all through. I am 
 not admitting the reliability of that evidence in fact, 
 but for the purposes of my examination of it, of course 
 1 have accepted it, and am seeing what it proves. 
 Sheridan is shown to have been, and I have no doubt 
 correctly shown to have been, a Fenian. He is shown 
 to have been, and again no doubt correctly shown to 
 have been, a Land League organiser in the west ; but I 
 
398 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 P. J. wish to make it clear to your Lordships that no Land 
 
 ' '^"''^"' League organisers were at all appointed until October 
 
 1880. It mio'ht be earlier than October, but the 
 
 autumn of 1880, after, at all events, I believe, the 
 
 rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. 
 
 If your Lordships will refer — I must do it hereafter 
 — I will not yet turn to it, neither shall I read it, 
 because it will be necessary when I have examined the 
 whole of the evidence, and when I come to contrast tlie 
 statements of tlie Attorney - General, which lie was 
 instructed to make in opening, with the slight shreds and 
 scraps of evidence which have been forthcoming in sup- 
 port of these allegations ; but at page 55, the Attorney- 
 General broadly states that Sheridan was employed to 
 oro;anise, and did oro;anise outrao;es in the west of Ireland. 
 
 My Lords; I ask to be directed to one single item or 
 atom of evidence to justify that statement. I say there 
 is none, and it is not because afterwards Sheridan may 
 have been mixed up in the atrocious Invincible con- 
 spiracies, and it is not because the grand jury of the 
 county or the city of Dublin have found a true bill 
 against him ; it is not for sucli reasons that the lurid 
 light of those subsequent events is to be thrown back 
 upon, and give a complexion to his conduct, which the 
 actual evidence and facts do not justify. 
 
 My Lords, the evidence is suggested against Sheridan 
 thus : The Attorney -General was instructed to open 
 that he would estal)lish beyond doubt that Mr. Parnell 
 knew, at the time of the " Kilmainham Treaty," as it has 
 been called, that Sheridan had been organising outrages 
 in the west, and as he had been employed to organise anil 
 get up outrages in the west, so he could be employed to 
 put down outrages in the west. The Attorney-General 
 must have made that statement on the supposition that 
 
xviii AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 399 
 
 Captain O'Sliea was going to prove something he did p- J- 
 not prove. I dealt witli that matter yesterday. I read ' 
 a contemporaneous letter and a contemporaneous speech 
 of Captain O'Shca upon that point, and I pointed out 
 also that there was nothing in the evidence, that he 
 swore before your Lordships, that in any substantial 
 degree differed from those contemporaneous statements. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, what is the further evidence against 
 Sheridan. The further evidence against Slieridan is the 
 evidence of a constable of the Royal Lisli Constabulary 
 at page 3404, tliat Shoridau, in tlie neiglibourhood in 
 which lie lived, used to frequent the forge of a black- 
 smith of the name of Bartley, and that after he had 
 been in the hal)it of paying visits to this Bartley, there 
 were found in that forge, which was searched in 1880, 
 certain bayonets and rifles, and other things of that 
 kind. My Lords, is this evidence sufficient to hang a 
 dog ujion ? I do not stop to discuss it. I do not know 
 whether it is proved, but I am informed that Bartley 
 himself was or had been a policeman. 
 
 What is the next evidence ? The next evidence is 
 that of a man called Loftus, who at page 3397 states 
 that in February of 1882 (1 ask your Lordships to note 
 the time), when Mr. Forster's Act was in force, and when 
 men were being arrested, and had been arrested to the 
 number of one thousand as suspects, Sheridan came to the 
 house of Loftus disguised as a priest. What of that ? 
 He undoubtedly desired not to be arrested as a suspect, 
 but as Loftus told us — the very witness called by the 
 prosecution — he came in order to see his wife, or to see 
 to a dispute about some family property. But there is 
 not a tittle of evidence from beginning to end of this 
 case — I shall be glad on the instant to be corrected if I 
 am wrong — to show, until I come to the man Delaney 
 
400 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE win 
 
 P. J. in relation to the Invincible conspiracy, tliat Slieridan 
 had anything to do with any outrage in the west of 
 Ireland, or any other part of Ireland, from the beginning 
 to the end of this story. 
 
 My Lords, the statement about his being in Ireland 
 in February 1882, disguised as a priest, came first, as he 
 will tell you, to the knowledge of Mr. Parnell, when it 
 was stated by ]\Ir. Forster in the House of Commons in 
 the month of February 1883, and not until then. 
 
 Lastly, we have the story of Delaney, who ])roadly 
 makes the statement that Egan, Sheridan, and Brennan 
 were leaders in the Invincible conspiracy. I have great 
 curiosity about the proof of that man Delaney, and 
 about the j^ersons who took it, or the person who took 
 it, I should be curious to see it for several reasons. 
 That man was examined Ijy the Attorney-General, and 
 in answer to questions put to him, he spoke of a number 
 of facts, as if they had been facts within his own know- 
 ledge, and as if his proof justified its being [issumed 
 that he had given information of facts witliin his (nvn 
 knowledge. Upon his cross-examination (as I shall 
 demonstrate more fully when I come to consider the 
 evidence against Egan) his whole evidence, so far as 
 these men were concerned, crumbled to pieces, for he 
 was obliged to admit in answer to a question that, 
 although he had made this broad statement, he had 
 never seen any one of those persons, either Egan or 
 Sheridan, at any meeting of the Invincibles whatever. 
 Your Lordships will see that at page 1887. 
 
 My Lords, I am not counsel for Sheridan ; he is an 
 absent man not under your Lordships' jurisdiction, and 
 not affected by any view your Lordships may take. 
 But I think it right and fair to point out two things, 
 and with that I leave Sheridan ; first, that apart from 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 401 
 
 Delaney's evidence, there is not a tittle of proof that p. J. 
 Slieridan was party to the organisation of any crime or ' "'"^ '^"" 
 of any outrage in any part of Ireland ; and next, that 
 the evidence of Del any, as regards the part which 
 Sheridan is alleged to have played in the Invincible 
 conspiracy, is tainted evidence, and on cross-examina- 
 tion shown to be unreliable. 
 
 My Lords, the next name I stated I would deal Byme. 
 with, was Byrne. I shall have to speak of Byrne a 
 little more fully in relation to the allegation, the direct 
 allegation, the personal allegation made against Mr. 
 Parnell, which amounts to this, that, knowing that 
 Byrne was a criminal guilty of a most atrocious crime, 
 Mr. Parnell, by an o})portune payment, helped him to 
 liy from justice. For the present moment I will content 
 myself by saying, as regards Byrne, that he had nothing 
 to do with the Irish Land League organisation, or 
 National League organisation whatever. I am speaking, 
 of course, of Ireland, your Lordships understand, at this 
 momeut. He had nothing to do with the Land League 
 organisation, or with the National League organisation 
 in Ireland whatever. He had to do with the English 
 l)ranch of both of those organisations. Lie had been 
 secretary to the Home Eule organisation in the time of 
 the late Mr. Isaac Butt ; and he came as a legacy from 
 that gentleman, not appointed by Mr. Parnell or any- 
 body associated with Mr. Parnell. Mr. Parnell's 
 association with him and knowledge of him was, as 
 your Lordships will hear when he is called into the box, 
 of the slightest kind. But I say as regards Byrne there 
 is no evidence against him except the evidence of state- 
 ments, attributed to him, which he is supposed to have 
 made upon the other side of the Atlantic, and the 
 evidence of the man Mulqueeny as to the possession of 
 
 2 D 
 
402 " THE TIMES " E VIDENCE x v 1 1 1 
 
 the knives, and tlie evidence of Delaney, who speaks to 
 Ids having been with Slieridan and Egan, parties to the 
 ' Invincible conspiracy. But again, as to him, ])L'lajicy, 
 
 when pressed, said that the only occasion on wliich lie 
 saw Byrne (I think I am right in this) in connection 
 with the Invincibles was on some occasion at the house 
 of one of the Mullets, when he alleged money had 
 been paid, he did not say by Byrne, but he said he 
 saw money on the table after Byrne had been there 
 or after Byrne had left. But my present purpose is not 
 conversant with the question of the Invincible con- 
 spiracy, but with the question whether there is any 
 general evidence against Byrne in relation to any other 
 crime or outrage beyond the fact that he was in England 
 the secretary of the League, and in that character had 
 to do with the appointment of organisers for the League, 
 and beyond the fact that amongst those organisers whom 
 he probably (I do not know whether the fact is so or 
 not) appointed was one whose conduct is alleged to have 
 been of a most reprehensible kind — I mean AValsh, of 
 JMiddlesboro'. There is not, so far as I am aware, any 
 such evidence against Byrne whatever. 
 Boyton. Now, my Lords, the next is Boyton, and in relation 
 
 to him the Attorney-General was instructed to make an 
 equally sweeping and strong statement, namely, that as 
 Sheridan had been organising outrages in the west, so 
 Boyton was pursuing the same nefarious schemes in 
 Leinster in the east. But from the beginning to the 
 end of the evidence (I say it with literal accuracy) there 
 is no shadow of evidence that I am aware of, or that my 
 learned friends have been able to call my attention to, 
 showing that in Leinster or in any other part of Ireland 
 Boyton was in any way associated with any outrage or 
 with any crime ; and even the witness Beach, or Le 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 403 
 
 Caroii, wlio appears to have visited Boyton in Kilmain- 
 hniii, lins not, I will not say invented, but even he has 
 ]iot stated any incriminatory conversation with Boyton. 
 Boyton appears to have claimed to be an American 
 citizen, <M,nd appears to liave asked (according to Le 
 Caroii, at page 2502) the aid of Le Caron to assist 
 liini in getting his citizenship of the United States 
 recognised, and to have added (on observation not 
 without a certain amount of significance) the expression 
 of his regret that " the boys," as he called them (and, as 
 your Lordships will recollect, Captain O'Shea also called 
 the Fenians), were opposing the open movement. This 
 conversation was in May of 1881. I am reminded there 
 was one statement relating to Boyton, of the man 
 Delaney, who never having seen Boyton before or after- 
 wards, stated that on some occasion, to which he referred, 
 l)oyton had pointed out a Mr. Burke, not the Under- 
 Secretary ]\lr. Burke, who was afterwards unhappily 
 nnirdered, but Mr. Burke, who was chairman of the 
 Prisons Board. That statement of Delaney's, if it is 
 mateiinl, is entirely without corroboration. 
 
 The next in the order is Brennan. Again here I have Brennan. 
 to correct a statement of the Attorney- General's. He 
 stated in O'Donnell v. Walter (I am not sure that he 
 repeated the mistake when opening the case before your 
 Lordships) that a true bill had been found against 
 Bi-ennnn in connection witli the Phoenix Park murders. 
 Tlint is not so. Mr. Fottrell, the clerk of the Crown, 
 produced the record, and that is found not to be the case. 
 Brennan is stated by Delaney, and alone by Delaney, to 
 have been concerned in the Invincible conspiracy. But, 
 again, when he comes to be cross-examined, as your 
 Lordships will find at pnge 1887, it is entirely hearsay, 
 and he is obliged to admit that he never saw Brennan 
 
404 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 at any meeting or in connection with any party of the 
 Invincibles. In relation to Brennan, there is tlie story 
 tokl by Le Caron of the conversation which he alleges 
 he had with Egan, in which Egan said that Brennan liad 
 told him what Sexton had done upon the occasion of his 
 (Brennan's) leaving the country, and which Le Caron at 
 fourth hand deposed to before your Lordships. I have 
 already intimated that Mr. Sexton will be called before 
 your Lordships and will deal with that matter. I^et mc 
 remind your Lordships (for it is most important to l)e 
 borne in mind in this connection, remembering the 
 history of the rise of this Livincible conspiracy as having 
 been in October of 1881) that Brennan, who is stated by 
 this informer, Delaney, to have been one of the Li- 
 vincibles, was in prison from May of 1881 (tlierefore 
 months before the conspiracy began) until June of 1882, 
 after the conspiracy had ripened into the atrocious 
 murder in the Phoenix Park. It shows, my Lords, how 
 unsafe men's characters, liberties, and lives would be if 
 they were to be at the mercy of men like Delaney. 
 p. Egan. The remaining one of those five with whom I am 
 
 dealing is Mr. Patrick Egan. I wish to say something 
 about Mr. Patrick Egan at rather greater length than 
 about the others. Mr. Patrick Egan was a Dublin 
 tradesman of recognised position and of great respect- 
 ability. The men who knew him best, the men who were 
 associated with him longest, will not be afraid to come 
 before your Lordships and express openly the opinion 
 that they entertained and still entertain of Mr. Patrick 
 Egan. lie was a man who had undoubtedly been a 
 Fenian, but he was a man who was thrown off, or who 
 separated himself from the Fenian body, and was one 
 of the original members, I think, of the party formed by 
 Mr. Butt in 1870, or soon after 1870, on the basis of 
 
xviij AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 405 
 
 tlic <U'inaii(l for IIoiiic Rule. He continued throughout 
 witli Mr. Butt in that matter, and when the National 
 League was formed he threw himself into it with earnest- 
 ness and with energy. For what was called, by his 
 former associates amongst the Fenian body, his abandon- 
 ment of tlieir cause, he was roundly abused and de- 
 nounced l)y them. I think Le Caron spoke of his being 
 abused amongst others by one of the former heads 
 of the Fenian movement, a man, I believe, of high 
 personnl chnracter and of considerable attainments, Mr. 
 John O'Leary, who is still living, and who is still in 
 Ireland. What is the evidence against Egan ? First of 
 all, there is tlie man Farragher, who was a clerk at one 
 time in the Land League Oltices. Your Lordships will 
 find the principal part of his evidence from pages 2022- 
 Gl. Your Lordships will also find an important part 
 of his evidence on cross-examination at page 2851, 
 upon the occasion of his being recalled. His statement 
 is tlint Egan was a friend of Mullet's ; that he carried 
 letters from Egan to Mullet containing money ; and he 
 goes on to say that Egan was frequently at the offices 
 of the Land League through 1881 and up to October 
 1881. He is singularly vague as to the dates upon 
 which these curious transactions took place. Although 
 fre(|uently pressed he constantly refused to give any- 
 thing like definite evidence of any kind as to dates ; and 
 his evidence, taking it at the best or at the w^orst, amounts 
 to nothing more than this — that he showed that Egan 
 was in communication with Mullet, principally at a time 
 long anterior to any suggestion of an invincible con- 
 spiracy at all. 
 
 But, my Lords, his evidence will be shown to be 
 unreliable upon this Ijroad ground. When there had 
 been some arrests made, amongst others the arrest of Mr. 
 
4o6 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 Michael Davitt in FeLruaryof 1881, it was appreheiRlcd 
 that there would be an attempt to seize the l)ook8 and 
 so forth of the Land League, and so break up the 
 organisation ; and in that month of February 1881 Egan 
 went to live in Paris, and remained in Paris practically 
 to August 1882. I have said before (and I repeat it now) 
 that I do not aver and do not suggest that he did not 
 visit Dublin on one or two occasions, or that he may not 
 have visited Dublin on one or two occasions ; but it is 
 wholly wrong to suggest, as Farragher suggested, thai 
 he saw or could have seen Egan frequently at the Land 
 League Offices during the time to wliich Farraoher's 
 evidence applies. 
 
 Then comes the evidence of the man Delaney, wlio, 
 beginning by stating that Egan was one of the heads of 
 the Invincibles, on cross-examination is obliged to admit 
 that his statements were mere hearsay, and that he had 
 never seen Egan at an Invincible meeting ; in fact, he 
 went further and said this, on page 1887 : — 
 
 " Then it comes to this, that except seeing him, as you helieve, 
 at the meeting of the 30th April 1880, you did not see liim dnring 
 1880, I mean to speak to him or have any conununication with 
 him through 1880 or 1881 or 1882 ? (A.) No." 
 
 Therein he distinctly contradicts the statement that 
 he had previously made. The meeting of tlie 30th of 
 April was the meeting at the Rotunda, at which your 
 Lordships will recollect, the opposition of O'llanlon and 
 others of the Fenians took place. 
 
 Then comes the evidence of Le Caron, which I will 
 refer to later when I come to consider the American 
 branch of the case. And here again I have to correct a 
 very serious mis-statement made against Mr. Egan. It 
 was opened by the Attorney- General, that against him 
 also was found a true Ijill in relation to the Phoenix 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMTIERS CHARGED 407 
 
 Park murders. Your Lordships will find that statement 
 at page 83 in the Attorney-General's speech in O'Donnell 
 V. Walter, for which there is no foundation whatever, 
 as tlic evidence of Mr. Fottrell (which I think your 
 Lordships will find at page 3353) establishes, or which 
 the documents he put in establish. I have already 
 pointed out that there is even no proof whether or 
 not there was a warrant out against him or applied 
 for, to imprison him as a suspect nnder Mr. Forster's Act. 
 Mr. Egan, as your Lordships will hear, had long before 
 he went to America intended to go to America. His 
 l)usiness had been completely broken up, because not 
 only had liis partner Mr. Rourke been taken as a suspect, 
 but he himself had been, for a great part of two years at 
 least, in Paris, and he had, as your Lordships will 
 licni', long l)ef()r(3 the ([ucstion of the discovery of the 
 actual I'lupiiix Park murderers, resolved to go to America. 
 
 I will only make this passing observation, that Mr. 
 Le Caron's statement, as to ]\Ir. Egan's supposed con- 
 ]iections in America, does not seem to have been credited 
 in til at great community, because, as your Lordships, I 
 suppose, have seen in the papers, the American Republic 
 have accredited Mr. Egan as their representative to 
 (Jhili. Well, it will be suggested or may be suggested 
 — ]H'ol)ably truly suggested — that politics and political 
 iidhicnce had to do with that. I do not doubt it the 
 least in the world ; but have politics nothing to do with 
 like or even with more important positions in this 
 country ? 
 
 So I dismiss the evidence relating to Egan, making 
 tliis one general comment — that apart from these stories 
 of Delaney and of Farraglier, which I have, I think, proved 
 to be unreliable ; beyond the fact which he admits, and 
 which his friends admit, that he was active and zealous 
 
4o8 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 in support of the Land League and of tlie National 
 League ; I say there is not one tittle of evidence of his 
 being party in any shape or form to crime or outrage of 
 any kind. 
 
 Your Lordships will of course understand that I am 
 considering this part of the case apart wholly from the 
 question of the letters ; for it will Ije demonstrable upon 
 the whole consideration of tlie case, that, if it had not 
 been for the rotten foundation of these letters, there 
 would not have been, there could not have been these 
 charges advanced ao:ainst Mr. Eg-an, or aoainst ]\[r. 
 Parnell and others in connection with this case. 
 
 Parueii. Now, my Lords, I will refer next in the order which 
 
 I have laid down for myself, to the evidence against the 
 members, making one passing comment upon the case 
 as regards Mr. Michael Davit t. As regards Mr. Parnell, 
 I will reserve my general consideration of his case, until 
 I come to the case which more directly applies to him. 
 
 Davitt. Of Mr. Davitt, I will only say this — he will Ijc able 
 
 to speak for himself ; that what he has done, he (jpenly 
 avows he has done, and he is prepared to take the risk 
 of what he has said. AVliat he has said has consisted of 
 plain straightforward manly work in a cause which he 
 believed to be a righteous and a just cause ; and I say 
 in the conduct that he has pursued, he has shown en(jrmous 
 moral courage. For he has separated himself — a difficult 
 thing I conceive it to be — from former associates bound 
 to him, and he to them, by secret oaths. He lias incurred 
 in great part their personal hostility. He has incurred 
 risk of his life, as your Lordships will hear ; and he has 
 had the bravery to meet them in the camps of the Clan- 
 na-gael on I think one or two occasions, and to try and 
 win them into the straight and open path of constitu- 
 tional agitation. 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 409 
 
 My Lords, the first of the members of Parliament, as J. J. 
 I find in the order licforc me, is tlie case of Mr. J. J. ^ ^' 
 O'Kelly. Mr. J, J. O'Kelly was unquestionably a Fenian, 
 and unquestional)ly high up in the ranks of that body. 
 He has led an adventurous life, which he will tell your 
 Lordships, in all proliability, in the box. It is perfectly 
 true that his position was one in relation to the military 
 organisation of the Fenian movement, that he was con- 
 nected with that, as Le Caron has said, up to the year 
 1878 or 1879, I forget which. That he had a mission 
 to perform in that regard as late as 1878 or 1879. He 
 will tell you how he separated himself from the move- 
 nient, and that, from and after the time of his joining the 
 open movement, he has had no part, direct or indirect, 
 witli his former associates, or with their former methods 
 or })lans. Apart from the suggestions of Le Caron, 
 who I tliink never met him until he met him, as well as 
 [ recollect, in May 1881, there is not one tittle of evi- 
 dence against Mr. O'Kelly at all. An attempt has Ijeen 
 made — I was not here wdien it was made — an attempt 
 was made t(3 connect with him, as I understand, some 
 fund in some banking account ; and with some draft or 
 payment connected with that account or l)oth. As far 
 as that is an attempt, it has entirely failed, and I am 
 informed it must fail, for there is no foundation what- 
 ever for it, a]id Mr. O'Kelly will come before your 
 Lordships and answer fully as to his own acts before he 
 joined the rnrncU party, and will answer fully for his 
 owji acts and for the acts of any of his colleagues after 
 he joined the open })arty. 
 
 The next case is Mr. Edward Harrington. I have e. Harring- 
 not excluded him from those against whom there was 
 no evidence, although I might well, for there is literally 
 none. AVliat is the evidence against him ? My Lords, 
 
4IO ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 I present to you such scraps or fragments — I can do no 
 more — as tlie evidence in the case discloses. ]Mr. 
 Maurice Leonard, at page 565, spoke to Mr. Edward 
 Harrington being present at the erection of an eviction 
 hut. John Donohoe, at page 1755, speaks of ]\lr. 
 Edward Harrington — I am not sure whether correctly 
 or not, but I do not stop to consider that — of having 
 paid for the dieting or support of certain prisoners in 
 Tralee Gaol, who were there as " suspects," and having 
 said that, I have said all that is to be said ao-ainst ]\[r. 
 Harrington ; but I suspect, like Mr. O'Brien and like 
 Mr. T. D. Sullivan, one the editor of United Ireland, 
 and the other the editor and printer of the Nation — 
 they have been joined for the purpose of the easier 
 admission of all that has appeared in the columns of 
 those papers respectively. So far as the contents of the 
 Kerry Sentinel are concerned — so far as I have seen 
 them, I do not speak of what I have not seen — but, so 
 far as my attention has been called to them, I do not 
 know that there is anything in them for which Mr. 
 Edward Harrington may be in the least degree ashamed. 
 I know there have been read from his columns several 
 articles which may be pointed to by him with perfect 
 satisfaction, and which rellect credit upon him, if he 
 be the writer. 
 Dillon. The next in order is Mr. John Dillon. My Lords, I 
 
 must greatly regret that Mr. John Dillon, owing to his 
 state of health, will not be able to appear before your 
 Lordships and be seen and examined before you. I am 
 not going to take the opportunity in his absence of pro- 
 nouncing any laudation upon him ; Init whatever any- 
 body may think of the wisdom or discretion of any 
 parts of his public conduct, or of any parts of the 
 speeches to wliicli he has given utterance, I am not 
 
AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 411 
 
 awaio that any one — even of those most hostilely opposed 
 to him — lias doubted the perfect integrity of his purpose, 
 the })erfect disinterestedness of liis motives. What the 
 evidence against liim is I, at present, know not. 
 
 Tlie next case is Thomas Mayne. Tiiomas 
 
 (l^hc President) I did not catch the name. ^^'"^'"'• 
 
 {Sir (!. Russell) Mayne : 1 am not surprised the 
 name should not be recognised by your Lordships. The 
 evidence against him is to be found in that of Captain 
 Slack at page 233G ; that on the 20th April 1885, at 
 Drangan (I think it was), in Tipperary, he made a speech 
 in general denunciation of hmd-grabbing ; and then Cap- 
 tain Slack mentions when — if I may be allowed to use the 
 expression — he was given, in cross-examination, his head 
 — I mean he was allowed to speak in the fullest way, men- 
 tions, as one of his jiislifications for connecting the action 
 of the mendx'rs of the League with outrage, that this 
 general speech, which was in no way pointed against 
 any particular person, was in Captain Slack's mind 
 connected with the case of boycotting of a man named 
 Mitchell — a man your Lordships may recollect, who was 
 called very nearly at the end of The, Times case — a man 
 who was uncpiestionably severely boycotted. 1 do not 
 extenuate or deny it, but he had played the part, as it is 
 called, of the emergency man, for the Property Defence 
 Association, or the Loyal Patriotic Union, or some land- 
 lord combination of that kind — Mitchell's was the case, 
 which your Lordships may recollect, in which, comply- 
 ing Avith the request of a district inspector or constable 
 (I forget which), Mitchell came down from Dublin, and 
 went round the town — I forget the name of the town, 
 Drangan, I think it was — calling at various places in 
 order to show that he Avas in fact boycotted and could 
 not get the proAdsions Avhicli he Avas supposed to Avant. 
 
412 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 P.J.Foley. The next member is Mr. P. J. Foley. I am not 
 sure your Lordships will be aljle to recall what the 
 evidence aoainst him is. You will recollect a constant 
 reference to the case of one A\''alsh, of Middlesboro', and 
 to another Walsh — for they are not to be confounded 
 — to another Walsh, who was arms' agent, and con- 
 victed and sentenced for having arms for the pur- 
 pose of forwarding them for the Fenian body years ago. 
 Whenever there seemed to be some difficulty in proceeding 
 easily with the evidence, my learned friends (I think 
 particularly Mr. Murphy, who seemed to have cliarge of 
 the AYalshes) used to recur from time to time to this case, 
 and if we had one reference to it, I should think I could 
 point out over the volumes of evidence at least one dozen. 
 But Mr. Foley's offence was this. Mr. Foley, in the month 
 of September 1882, drew a cheque for £100 in favour of 
 Mr. Frank Byrne — and I would ask your Lordships to 
 note the date, September 1882. He sent on the notes 
 given at the bank in exchange for that che(]ue, and 
 presumably to Byrne, the secretary in England, and 
 one note found its way into the hands and was traced 
 to the hands of John Walsh of Middlesboro', who 
 unquestionably was a Land League organiser in England, 
 and was employed by Byrne. My Lords, it needs some 
 little ingenuity to see the connection of all these transac- 
 tions, but I will endeavour to explain it. This was 
 John Walsh of Middlesboro', who undoubtedly at tliat 
 time, and may have been until very recent times, as far 
 as I know, a Fenian. He was appointed, apparently at 
 the instance of Byrne, the secretary in England, one of 
 the organisers of the Land League in this country in 
 England. And, my Lords, the story therefore is shortly 
 this, and it has been already explained in another 
 connection ; that the funds which the English branch 
 
AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 413 
 
 of the organisation had came from two sources ; first of 
 all they came from such small contributions as were 
 received in England and came into the hands of Byrne 
 — the suiall clieques ; and wlien tliese funds were in.sufli- 
 cient, they were supplemented by grants from the JJublin 
 branch, which was the one which had control of con- 
 sideral)le funds. My Lords, tlic explanation is simply 
 this, that Byrne on previous occasions, having no bank^ 
 ing ac('ount, the branch here having no account, when 
 he had a nundjer of these cheques, used to come to Mr. 
 Foley or to Mr, Justin M'Carthy, as your Lordships 
 will hear from him, and ask to have a cheque, which 
 he could cash, exchanged for tliese small cheques. 
 That was the case in this instance, and Byrne having 
 got it, proceeded to distribute it according to the 
 purpose for which it was given, at least presumably 
 so, and amongst others paid the organisers amongst the 
 branches in this country. That is the whole of the 
 story as I understand it. 
 
 Now, I come to a group of the members {for I will Ji. Ueaiy. 
 
 , , 1 \ -n T J- ^ • Lane. 
 
 endeavour to group them, so as to get over them), Mr. j. Deasy. 
 Maurice Ilealy, solicitor, of Cork ; Mr. J. W. Lane, Mr. j.Giiiio'oiy. 
 J. Deasy, Mr. Patrick O'Hea, and Mr. Gilhool3^ Who 
 are these men? It is childish to have to dwell for a 
 moment on such cases as these, Peter Fawcett, of the 
 Jloyal Irish Constaljulary, came here at considerable 
 expense to The Times and the loss of his valuable 
 services in tlie preservation of peace in Ireland. How 
 long he was here I know not, but your Lordships will 
 find his evidence at page 211 (>. AVliat is the evidence? 
 That on one occasion he saw these men in company with 
 Scanlan, wliom he, Peter Fawcett, of the lloyal Irish 
 Constabulary, believed to be a mend)er of the Irish 
 Pepublican Brotherhood ; and he, Thomas Scaiilau, was 
 
414 " THE TIMES " E VIDENCE x v 1 1 1 
 
 afterwards arrested for firing at a man called Flynn in 
 Duncan Street, Cork. My Lords, there is the indict- 
 ment against these five members of Parliament. 
 
 There is one additional item against Mr. Gilhooly, 
 and that consists of what was suo-oeyted to be a threaten- 
 ing letter — or if not suggested in that sense I know not 
 for what purpose used — that he, Mr. Gilhooly, had 
 written to one Mr. Robert White from the Bantry 
 Leao;ue with reference to an eviction which had there 
 taken place. Your Lordships will find Ins letter at page 
 2831. A district inspector Kennedy attended this 
 court, and enjoyed himself in London, how long I know 
 not, to give this valuable piece of evidence to your 
 Lordships. Here is the letter on page 2832 : — 
 
 " Bantry Land Leagne, Bantry. 
 " Robert H. C. White, Esq., J.F. 
 
 " ])eau Sir — At the meeting of the above League held to-day, 1 
 have been requested to write to you and I'espectfully request that you 
 will reinstate Samuel Reardon of Armatroth in the holding from which 
 he has been evicted by you for the non-payment of an exorbitant 
 rent. — I remain your obedient servant, James Ghjiooly." 
 
 There is the head and front of James Gilhooly's oficnce. 
 J. E. The next member of Parliament is Dr. J. E. Kenny, 
 
 ^ " ^' and the evidence in relation to him is that of F. O'Keefe, 
 Your Lordships will find it at page 2273. He was a 
 clerk at a bank, and lie proves the payment of a cheque 
 to T. Horan, secretary of the Castleisland branch of the 
 Land League, which was drawn by Dr. Kenny as League 
 treasurer. 
 
 Now, my Lords, this incident I do not treat in the 
 same light fashion at all. 1 consider it the only fact, the 
 sole fiict, in the case which in any way connects the 
 central branch or any members of the central branch of 
 the Land League in Dublin with any complicity, direct 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 415 
 
 or iudirect, with crime, or with any payment or supposed 
 payment in connection with crime. Wlien I have stated 
 that to your Lordships you need not suppose I am going 
 to palliate it, or to mitigate it, but I must make some 
 observations upon it. First, the time is important. On 
 11th September Horan, who is unhappily dead and 
 cannot be Ijeforc your Lordships, writes a letter which is 
 set out at page 1113, in which he says :— 
 
 " Sill — I l)cg to draw your attention to a matter of a private char- The Horan 
 acter, which I attempted to cx})lain to you when I was in Dublin ^'*°Vie- 
 at the (Convention. The fact is that one of the men, from a shock, 
 lost the use of his eye. It cost him £4 to go to Cork foi- 
 medical attendance. Another man received a wound in the thigh 
 and was laid up for a month. No one knows the persons but the 
 doctor and myself and the members of that society. I may inform 
 you tlint the said parties cannot afford to suffer. If it were a public 
 affair a subscription-list Avould be opened at once for them, as they 
 proved to be heroes. One other man escaped a shot, but got his 
 jaws grazed. Hoi)ing you will at your discretion see your way to 
 making a grant, which you can send through me or the Rev. John 
 Ilallagan, C.C. — Yours truly, TiMOTiiY HoRAN." 
 
 Now, my Lords, apparently nothing was done upon 
 that letter at the time, and on 13th October the cheque 
 in question was drawn, and, altliough it does not 
 necessarily follow, I think it proper to assume — I 
 desire to deal with perfect candour with your Lord- 
 shi]>s in ndation to this instance — was sent in pursu- 
 ance of tliat letter. And I admit further, that reading 
 between the lines of tliat communication, it ought 
 to, and probably did, convey that the affray in whicli 
 these men were injured was an affray of an illegal 
 kind, whether it related to a riot, or a conflict with the 
 police, or a raid for arms, I know not, and none of the 
 persons in Dublin, as I am informed, can tell your Lord- 
 ships. But at the time when the question came for con- 
 
4i6 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 
 
 The Horau sidcratioii before the Land League the state of tilings 
 
 Cheque. i • mi t~» • • ti i^ 
 
 was this. iJie secretary, lirennan, was iii prison. l\lr. 
 Sexton had, some time before, been in charge — as 1 tohl 
 your Lordships — in succession to Mr. Joliii DiUon, 
 who had been arrested, and as far as I can make out, 
 this transaction took phace at a point — if I am wrong- 
 in this statement of facts I shouhl be hnppy to be cor- 
 rected, even as I am speaking ; I think I am riglit — this 
 incident appears to have taken phice at probably the very 
 highest point of disorganisation in the government of 
 the League that can be pointed to ; Dillon, the previous 
 organiser, was in prison ; Mr. Sexton, who succeeded 
 him as the head in the direction and control of the 
 central l)ranch, had fallen ill ; and about this time 
 Mr. Arthur O'Connor had succeeded him. Mr. Sexton 
 and Mr. Arthur O'Connor will tell your Lordships 
 that they had no knowledge whatever of this transac- 
 tion, and Mr. Ferguson, whose initials appear upon the 
 back of the letter, who is a gentleman, I believe, 
 of a respectable position in Glasgow, undoubtedly was, 
 on that occasion, and probably owing to the disorgan- 
 isation which had fallen upon the League and its local 
 representatives, had been for some time in charge, 
 and apparently been chairman of, the executive of the 
 National League. 
 
 My Lords, I do not seek to minimise the import- 
 ance of this incident at all, but I wish to explain 
 the circumstances under which it occurred, and to 
 point out further to your Lordships — to my mind 
 the most important thing of all — that although this 
 seems to indicate, and, as I believe, does indicate a most 
 condemnable act, yet the very circumstances in which 
 the application is made, the very tenor of the letter in 
 which the application is made, go very strongly to iiega- 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 417 
 
 tive tlio Cease which is put forward by llie Times — thcat The Horan 
 this wns a habitual course of practice. That is the case ^""''^"'^• 
 which The Times, wliich the prosecution, liave presented 
 — direct, systematic use of crime for the purpose of 
 furthering ostensibly legal and constitutional objects. If 
 tlie payments for crime had been part of the ordinary 
 recognised macliinery, the payment would have been 
 demiindcd as a matter of course, and the payment would 
 have l)een given as a matter of course ; but the very terms 
 in which this letter is couched, and the way in which the 
 demand is put forward by the letter, are most important 
 as showing that it was an exceptional circumstance, and 
 contrary to the whole course and tenor of this movement. 
 
 As far as Dr. Kenny's conduct is concerned, with 
 whose case I was dealing, it consists, my Lords, of the 
 fact til at he, being the then treasurer of the League, 
 signed the cheque, and as I am instructed — and Dr. 
 Kenny is here in court, and listening to me — as I am 
 instructed, Dr. Kenny will tell your Lordships that, as 
 far as liis knowledge has gone — Mr. Sexton will tell you ■ 
 the same, and Mr. Arthur O'Connor will tell you the 
 same — tliat to his knowledge one penny was never paid, 
 then or at any time, for the purpose of paying for crime, 
 or for screening those who had committed crime. 
 
 The next member is JMr. J. C. Flynn. Your Lord- j.c.Fiynn 
 ships will find the evidence at page 2842. The only 
 evidence ngainst Flynn is this, that as late as 28th 
 October 1888, in Middleton, Cork, he appears to have 
 boasted to having himself belonged to the physical force 
 movement, and to have claimed that Mr. Parnell's 
 proudest boast ought to be that he had welded the Irish 
 people into one solid phalanx. ]\Iy Lords, I make no 
 comment upon that ; there is the whole head and front 
 
 of the case against him, 
 
 2 E 
 
4i8 
 
 ''THE TIiUES" EVIDENCE 
 
 D. Sheehy, 
 
 J. T. 
 Condon. 
 
 Arthur 
 O'Connor. 
 
 The next is Mr. D. Sbeeliy, member of Parliament. 
 The evidence against him is at page 725, and consists of 
 a speech delivered by him on the 21st November 18 86, 
 at Kylebeg, near, or on the farm of one Kennedy, who 
 had taken an evicted farm. The case is not in any way, 
 or from any point of view, a serious one, for that speech, 
 having been delivered in November 188G, in January 
 1887 Kennedy had some stock taken away and he was 
 boycotted, but apparently the boycotting was not of a 
 serious kind ; and in the speech, which will be read to 
 your Lordships — I do not trouble to read it now — while 
 there is condemnation of the conduct of Kennedy in not 
 making common cause with his fellows, there is a very 
 earnest and strong disapprobation expressed of any- 
 thing approaching violence or unlawfulness of that 
 kind. 
 
 The next case is that of Mr. J. T. Condon, against 
 whom the only evidence is what I have already told your 
 Lordships. It will be found at page 2795, where Condon 
 is supposed to have said, in the autumn of 1886, that if 
 he had been at his place of business it is the knife 
 Mitchell would have got. It is of course obvious to 
 your Lordships that this, even if it had occurred, 
 which I am told is denied, is merely an incidental and, 
 of course, condemnable oljservation, but has nothing to 
 do with the issues in this case. 
 
 My Lords, the next case is the case of Mr. Arthur 
 O'Connor. The evidence against him is also of the 
 slightest kind. Jt appears that on the 10th of October 
 1880 he made at Castleisland a speech in which he men- 
 tioned, and mentioned with reprehension, the name of 
 Mr. S. M. Ilussey. It appears, as I understand the case, 
 that Mr. Arthur O'Connor, and, I think, one other member 
 
 of Parliament — I am not sure, Mr. Biggar, I think — had 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 419 
 
 just come from visiting a very distressing scene, which I 
 will not attempt to describe, with reference to an evic- 
 tion on some property of Mr. Ilussey's, or upon some 
 property of which he was au agent. They spoke in 
 strong terms at that meeting, hut following that we do 
 not hear of any outrage, or violence, or anything ; but 
 tlie first thing that follows, so far as Mr. Hussey is con- 
 cerned, docs not occur iintil 1884, that is to say, nearly 
 four years after this supposed speech. That speech was 
 not, I mny add, considered sufficiently im2)ortant by the 
 prosecution even to be put in the list of speeches, of whicli 
 they complain, furnished to us. 
 
 My Lords, there was a further meeting and a further 
 s])eecli referred to by Captain Slack at page 2314, 
 delivered on the 6tli A2:»ril 1885, but I do not think 
 that that speech calls for any special notice, and the last 
 item is one 1 have already referred to in another con- 
 nection, namely, the payment to Mr. J. G. Eyan, 
 solicitor, of a cheque of £50 in relation to the Weston 
 House case, which I told your Lordships was a liability 
 incurred l)y the Ladies' Land League which Mr. rarnell 
 hc'id undertaken, amongst other liabilities, to discharge, 
 and all that Mr. Arthur O'Connor did was, with Mr. 
 Parnell, to sign the cheque in payment of it. 
 
 The next in my list is Mr. Biggar, who also appears, Mr. Biggar. 
 as your Lordships are aware, for himself. There is no 
 evidence against him except the evidence of two speeches, 
 which J\Ir. Bii2j2far himself will deal with, of the 21st 
 .March 1880 and the 10th October 1880, but I have 
 to say this, that in relation to those speeches, which I 
 do not stop to criticise, or in any way characterise, 
 it is not suggested that any violence or outrage in 
 any way followed upoji (^r was connected with cither. 
 Like Mr. Egan, he was a member of the L R. B., as it 
 
420 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 has been called, and for the course which he took during 
 the open constitutional movement he was expelled and 
 condemned by his former associates, and he admits — he 
 does not seek in any way to deny the fact — that he lias 
 been a zealous and active member of the party led b}^ 
 Mr. Charles Parnell. I may mention as I am informed 
 that Mr. Biggar was expelled from the Fenian organisa- 
 tion as far back as August 1877. 
 
 T. M. The next is Mr. T. M. Healy, a member of the TrisL 
 
 ^^^"•^ bar, and a member of Parliament. The case against 
 him is that he visited certain persons in 1881 and 1884 
 who were in Cork Prison, that he made a speech on the 
 l7th October 1880, and I think that is the whole of the 
 charge, as far as I know, against him. Mr. Healy also 
 appears for himself, and no one is better able than he is 
 to explain his conduct, if there be any conduct of his 
 that needs explanation. 
 
 John The next is Mr. John Redmond, member of Parlia- 
 
 e^ '"onf . jj^gj-,^^^ g^iso a member of the bar. The evidence against 
 him I fail to discover. What the evidence against him 
 is I have literally no conception. lie defended, according 
 to the evidence of Constable Brady, given at page 1773, 
 some prisoners tried in 1887, he being counsel at the 
 bar, for intimidating one Mrs. Council . ^Pliis is the case 
 which attracted a good deal of attention at the time, 
 but I do not desire to be diverted from the line which 1 
 am pursuing, for I wish to go cpiickly over the ground, 
 — a case not unlike Mitchell's, in which Mrs. Connell 
 was brought round to a number of persons, with some 
 of whom she had not previously dealt, in order that 
 evidence might be forthcoming of her being boycotted. 
 Your Lordsliips wdll see the evidence relating to it on 
 the page I have given, 1773. 
 
 I have to mention an incident in connection with 
 
XVI 11 AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 421 
 
 Mr. Eedmond — an important incident. On the Sunday an.i the 
 on wliicli the news arrived of the Phcenix Park murders S'J"''' 
 Mr. John Eedmond was in Manchester, and was at- '^'"'"^^rs. 
 tending a public meeting, at which it was intended that 
 he shoukl be a speaker, I l^eUeve he was literally on 
 his way to tlie meeting when he learned of the murder 
 of Tif^rd Frederick Cavendish ; he was accompanied by 
 a frieud, wlio gathered the same information at the 
 sam(> time, and at that time it was not known in 
 iMnnchester — certainly it had not reached the ears of 
 Mr. John Redmond and his friend — that Mr. Burke had 
 also lost his life in that Phoenix Park tragedy. He was 
 so shocked at the occurrence that I believe he adjourned 
 the meeting, and, iji giving the reason, he addressed 
 some words of strong and earnest condemnation of the 
 atrocity, the news of wlucli liad arrived, limiting his 
 remarks to the fate of Lord Frederick Cavendish, of 
 whose death alone he had at that time knowledge. 
 
 My Lords, The Times, commenting upon these obser- jni,,, 
 vations of his, called attention to the fact that while he J',;;J'5?,;'^ 
 condemned the murder of Lord Frederick Cavendish, ^""^^• 
 that he had been careful to abstain from saying one 
 word in condemnation of the equally atrocious murder 
 <:)f Mr. P)urke the Under - Secretary. Upon that Mr. 
 John Pvcdmond wrote to The Times stating the facts 
 whicli 1 have told your Lordships. They declined to 
 pulJish it ; they did not publish it. Afterwards in the 
 ITouse of Commons he made the explanation which his 
 letter was intended to convey, and in the Parliamentary 
 report in The Times of that s])eech of Mr. John Eedmond 
 his explanation, wdiich they had refused to insert in the 
 form of a letter, was deliberately omitted. My Lords, 
 I think in reference to this incident, I am using 
 language justifialJe and justified by the facts when 
 
42; 
 
 THE TIMES" EVIDENCE 
 
 William 
 lledmoiid. 
 
 T. Sexton. 
 
 I say that it was conduct that would properly be char- 
 acterised in the circumstances of the case as nothing 
 short of infamous. 
 
 Mr. William Kedmond is the next. The evidence, 
 and the only evidence, against him is that of l^istrict 
 Inspector Webb, given at page 3408. It consists of this — 
 and he does not deny the fact — that at a date mentioned 
 he did disseminate the "No Eent Manifesto." I have said 
 all upon that subject that I propose to say, Init it is 
 right to add that in a speech which has not been 
 referred to, namely, one delivered at Ennis on the 12th 
 November 1882, Mr. AVilliam Redmond proclaimed, as 
 the fact was, that the "No Rent Manifesto" was never the 
 policy of the Land League, and that the " No Rent 
 Manifesto" was merely a weapon temporarily used — I 
 think I am giving practically his own language — merely 
 a weapon temporarily used in a great emergency against 
 the unconstitutional imprisonment of the Irish leaders 
 and the local leaders of the Land League. And tliat, 
 my Lords, is the only speech put in in the course of 
 this case, of any Irish member between the suppression 
 of the League in October 1881 and the end of 1882, 
 a period, as I have told your Lordships, of the worst 
 crime. 
 
 The next member is Mr. Sexton, now Lord Mayor 
 of Dublin for the second year. There is no evidence 
 against him. There is the story told fourth-hand, to 
 which I have already adverted. Le Caron or Beach 
 tells your Lordships what Egan is supposed to have told 
 him, as to what Brennan is supposed to have told him, 
 Egan, as to what Mr. Sexton is supposed to have done 
 in relation to Brennan s flight. I have already intimated 
 to your Lordships that Mr. Sexton will be here to give 
 his own account of that matter. 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 423 
 
 The next is Dr. Tanner. He made two speeches — Dr. Tanner, 
 he made three altogether, to two of which only is it 
 necessary to make any reference, and, my Lords, my 
 reference must be a reference of strong- condemnation. 
 Your Lordships will find the evidence at pages 1385,1387, 
 and 1484. The first has relation to Hegarty, of Millstreet, 
 as to whom he used language which, I have not the 
 least doubt. Dr. Tanner would feel called upon, if he ap- 
 peared before your Lordships, to make apology for ; it is 
 not language which any gentleman ought to have used, 
 liut it may be said that the language which he did use 
 was in no way connected with any serious conse- 
 quences. 
 
 The next speech was on the 25th August 1886, 
 whicli, I think, is not in any sense of sufficient import- 
 ance to call your Lordships' attention to. The third 
 was on the 23d January 1887, where he spoke strongly 
 against the women of the country associating with the 
 Tvoyal Irish Constabulaiy, and it is said following upon 
 that speech the assault was committed on Rubina 
 Murphy. Your Lordships will find the story at page 
 1485 ; that a disguised party cut her hair off and put some 
 tar on her head, but she was not further injured. Of 
 course it was a most unworthy course of conduct to 
 pursue. My Lords, I am glad to be informed that the 
 fa(^.t is that this incident did not in any way mar the 
 prospects, matrimonial or otherwise, of Eubina Murphy, 
 for she w^as soon afterwards married, I believe within a 
 few days, to a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, 
 and I hope she has found a good husband and is leading 
 a happy life. 
 
 The next is Mr. John O'Connor, a member of Parlia- .john 
 mcnt. There is no evidence against him either of 
 speeches or of acts, except the evidence relating to the 
 
424 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 incident at Cork, to which I have already adverted, and 
 which calls at this stage for no furtlier reference. He 
 is shown to have visited some persons in Cork Prison. 
 Nothing further is to be said about him. 
 M. Harris. The ncxt is Mr. Matthew Harris, My Lords, IMr. 
 Matthew Harris is now an old man, and he undoubtedly 
 had been connected long ago with the Fenian movement, 
 and the principal accusation against him is in relation 
 to three speeches, I think, which he made. The one is 
 a' speech known as "the Partridge speech," delivered in 
 Galway on the 24th October 1880, as to which it was 
 alleged that Mr, Parnell was present at it, and it is put 
 as an accusation against Mr, Parnell that he stood by 
 and heard that speech delivered without any reprehen- 
 sion. My Lords, the fact is, as was proved by the 
 Government shorthand-writer in what has been called 
 the State Trial, that Mr, Parnell was not present when 
 that speech was delivered, Mr, Parnell will tell you 
 the same. But more, when the speech, reprehensible as 
 it unquestionably was, was delivered, it was promptly 
 denounced then and there by the chairman, Mr. Tierney, 
 a merchant. Moreover, Mr. Harris himself proceeded, at 
 tlie end of the meeting, to withdraw, and to apologise for 
 having made it, and he explained that what he meant 
 to convey was, not that he was justifying violence or 
 outrage committed on landlords, Imt that in the old days 
 when he had been a member of a great organisation, he 
 had gone about and had exerted himself to save lives and 
 avert danger from the landlords and land agents, and he 
 added, with some bitterness, that his eflbrts to save 
 them had not been recognised by milder and more 
 humane conduct on their part ; and then, on another 
 occasion, that is to say, seven days later, on tlie 31st 
 October 1881, at Loughglyn, he again referred to the 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 425 
 
 subject, and again endeavoured to undo any mischievous m. Hams, 
 effects that mig-ht have followed from' it. 
 
 My Lords, I have already dealt with what his conduct 
 was in relation to the Birmingham Farm, from wliicli 
 .Birmingham had been evicted, first taken by Ilynes, 
 surrendered l^y Ilynes, and afterwards taken by the un- 
 happy man Dempsey, and I pointed out yesterday that 
 in relation to this he had, after the Murty Ilynes 
 incident, taken no part whatever in relation to it. He 
 had later on, on the 7tli April 1881, at Carnagh, made 
 a speech in which he referred in very harsh, and I will 
 add un gallant, terms to Mrs. Blake of Renvyle. I do 
 not defend the prudence or propriety of that speech, but 
 I would only say that if the account put before me, 
 which your Lordships will probably hear in part given 
 l)y witnesses in the box, of the state of this lady's 
 tenantry, and her coiiduct in relation to them, is correct, 
 it certainly is not to l)e wondered that her conduct was 
 animadverted upon. 
 
 I think the only other speech which is referred to is 
 on the 25tli March 1881, at Killimore, where he makes 
 a speecli al)out land-grabbing ; but I am not aware that 
 it is suggested that any consequences of any serious 
 kind followed from that speech. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I think I have mentioned, with two 
 exceptions, the whole of the evidence pointing to the 
 conduct of Mr. Matthew Harris. Those two exceptions 
 are, first, the statement which your Lordships will find 
 on page 2788, that he was seen in company, in Ajjril 
 1882, with a person then going by the name of 
 Thompson, but who was, as suggested, a man called 
 Tynan, described and identified as No. 1. My 
 Lords, I am instructed that that is an absolute and 
 entire mistake. ]\lr. ]\lattlie\v Harris will tell you 
 
426 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 M. Harris, that tliis suofgestioii has no fomidation whatever in 
 fact. 
 
 The man Thompson has been on more than one 
 occasion referred to. I do not know wliether your 
 Lordships can recall him. In truth, this Thompson was 
 not Tynan at all, but an entirely different person, as 
 your Lordships will hear from more than one witness. 
 
 The only other item to which I have to make a 
 passing reference — I did refer to it before — were the 
 documents put in which have been referred to for brevity's 
 sake as "the Matthew Harris documents. " I have not read 
 them. I am not counsel for Mr. Matthew Harris. J\l}' 
 learned friend Mr. Lockwood, will deal with them as fir 
 as he thinks it important to do. I have only heard 
 their general description, and that general description 
 does not warrant any importance l)eing in any way 
 attached to their character. 
 
 T.Harring- The ucxt casc is tlic casc of Mr. Timothy Harrington, 
 a memljer of Parliament, and also a member of the Lish 
 bar. Apart from the evidence of the informer, Thomas 
 O'Connor, there is no evidence against him whatever. 
 Your Lordships will find in the case of the witness 
 LLagney, at page 615, that Mr. Timothy ILirrington is 
 shown to have tried to stop this boycotting. In the 
 case of the witness lionan, at page ^^Qi, your Lordships 
 will also find evidence that Mr. Harrington tried to stop 
 boycotting in his case. And, apart from the evidence of 
 Thomas O'Connor, the informer, the only remaining 
 evidence is (I have not even inquired, and I do not know 
 whether it is correct or not, and I do not stop for the 
 moment to in(pure) the evidence of Mrs, Donogliuo, at 
 page 1754, that Mr. Harrington paid in 1882 for the 
 support of certain suspects who were imprisoned at 
 Tralee. 
 
 ton, 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 427 
 
 Now, my Lords, I must say a word al)out tlie man t. n.arrin?- 
 'I'liomas O'Connor, His statement was, so far as Mr. inronner" 
 Harrington was concerned, your Lordships will recollect ^ ^°""°'^' 
 it, that Mr. Harrington paid a visit to Killientierna, or 
 Ourrow^ in March of 1881, upon the occasion of an 
 election of some guardians of the poor ; that he, 
 O'ConiHU', liad never spoken to Mr. Harrington hefore 
 (I do not know tliat he had even seen him before), but 
 his statement — liis almost incredible statement — was 
 tliat in t1ie open street, in company with one or two 
 others, who were also strangers apparently to Mr. 
 Harrington, Mr. Harrington told these young men that 
 they were to go about at night, I think, to voters who 
 had not promised to vote for the popular candidate, 
 tliat they w^ere not to do them much harm, but that 
 they were just to frighten them sufficiently to induce 
 them to vote for the popular candidate. They were not 
 to spare the persons whom they honoured with their 
 visit, l)ut they were to take care and not kill them. 
 
 On the face of it, my Lords, the statement is 
 ludicious in the extreme. He went on further to say 
 that he w\as to l)e paid for this, or that they were to lie 
 paid for this ; that after the election was over, they went 
 to Tralee ; that Mr. Timothy Harrington said they ought 
 to be ashamed of themselves, and to go oft' about their 
 InisiiKNss; l)ut that at a later period some mysterious 
 ptuson came and gave some money to one or other of 
 them, which was distributed as payment for those 
 nocturnal visits. My Lords, the story from beginning 
 to end is a most complete and aljsolute fabrication. But 
 he did not stop there. The brother of this O'Connor, as 
 I am informed, a respectable young man, the informer 
 being the ne'er-do-w^ell of the family, was the secretary 
 of the local branch of the League, and O'Connor deposed 
 
428 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 T. Harring- that a letter had come from Mr. Harrington from the 
 
 ton and the ,, i-tait !•• c 
 
 Informer Central oranch m Dublm, complanmig oi some action or 
 that local branch, saying that the Central League could not 
 authorise or recognise their proceedings, and declining 
 to give any grants through their medium, giving as the 
 reason (as your Lordships will find was given by Mr. 
 Harrington in many previous cases), that the state of the 
 district was so disturbed, that the central branch did 
 not believe that the local branch was exerting itself (that 
 is what is implied ; I will read the letter in a moment) 
 as it ouerht to do, against outrage. But he alleoed that 
 accompanying this letter was another letter, in which Mr. 
 Timothy Harrington, writing on the official paper of the 
 Land League, said that the true reason why grants were 
 withheld, was because the Land League branch was not 
 sufficiently active in the propagation of crime in Ireland. 
 I will read the letter, which is forthcoming ; the 
 apocryphal letter, naturally, is not : — 
 
 " The Irish National League, 
 43 O'Connel Street, Ujiper Dublin, 
 "Mr. John O'Connor, Currow, hth February 1886. 
 
 Scartaglen. 
 
 " Dear Sir — At the last meeting of the organising committee 
 of the National League I laid before them your application on 
 behalf of the evicted tenants, Mary Russell, ]\Tary Butler, and 
 Michael Riordan. 
 
 " I regret to say that the organising committee found themselves 
 compelled to refuse a grant, owing to the very disturbed and lawless 
 state of the county of Kerry at the present time. The committee 
 decided upon sending no grant to those districts where continual 
 disturbance has been kept up. I do not wish you to understand 
 that they believe the branch of the National League is in any way 
 associated with lawless outrages, but they wish to save the general 
 organisation from even the suspicion of sending funds to places 
 where outrages of this kind have been occurring, and they regard 
 this step as necessary for the safety and character of the organisation 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 429 
 
 at the present time, and have directed me to communicate their T. Harring- 
 views to the secretaries who have made application. — Yours faith- j^""" 
 fully, T. Harrington, Hon. Sec." O'Connor. 
 
 My Lords, is it credil)le ? Is it not, on the face of it, 
 without Mr. Harrington's denial, a story to which no 
 sensible man can for a moment give credence. But 
 tlierc is more to be said about O'Connor. I have so 
 much to say still to your Lordships that I cannot go 
 with tliat elaborateness, which if it were an important 
 incident in tlie case I should feel compelled to do, into 
 tlu! story tlmt he told. Your Lordships will have evi- 
 dence before you, but I wish to call attention to a state- 
 ment communicated to us, and upon which, I presume, 
 your Lordships, if my information is correct, will see 
 proper to take some steps. 1 am told that this man 
 O'Connor, after he gave his evidence in London, became 
 ill. lie professed to be a Catholic, and sent for a 
 Catholic priest. He was supposed to be dangerously 
 ill. He was a man, as we noticed at the time in the 
 box, obviously in very bad health. He then desired to 
 make, and did make, a sworn statement. He sent for 
 a solicitor, or a solicitor was sent for, at the instance of 
 tliis Catholic priest. The name of this solicitor is, I 
 understand, Mr. Biggan, and I understood also, from 
 the connnunication which ]\Ir. Biggan made to Mr. 
 liCwis, to whom he sent a copy of tliis statement, that 
 n, copy had also been sent to your Lordships. I do not 
 know wliether that is so or not. 
 
 (The President) That is so, with a statement that 
 he should communicate it to both parties, of which we 
 approved. 
 
 (Sir C. Russell) I did not know the tenor of the 
 communication to your Lordships at all. 
 
 (The President) AVe were informed it had been 
 
430 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 T.Harring- communicated to both the parties, and we left it to l)e 
 
 tou and the ^ ^ . i i n . i , in 
 
 ruformer dealt With by the parties as they thought nt. 
 
 (Sir C. Russell) I was not aware of that at all. 
 All my client instructs me ahout it is that this gentle- 
 man, Mr. Biggan, thought it right to send him a copy 
 of the communication, and added that he had sent one 
 to your Lordships. I did not know whether it would 
 be communicated to the other side or not ; but it obvi- 
 ously is desirable that that matter should be cleared up, 
 and that your Lordships should see this man in the box, 
 and know the truth of the matter. 
 
 But already we have under his own hand a state- 
 ment, the seriousness of which does not begin and end 
 with him only — I mean the letter which he wrote to his 
 brother at the time that he was in London, and which 
 letter was forwarded by that brother to Mr. Harrington. 
 Your Lordships will recollect this witness's own story. 
 That he wrote to Mr. Houston, of the so-called Loyal 
 and Patriotic Union (or to tlie secretary of the Loyal 
 and Patriotic Union) for some literature, in order that 
 he might disseminate it ; that he afterwards put himself 
 in communication with Mr. AValker. I am taking the 
 man's statements — very likely they may have been un- 
 true — that he got in answer to that application certain 
 literature ; that then he proposed to give information ; 
 that he did, I think, to Mr. Shannon give some state- 
 ment; and when he arrives in London, he writes to his 
 brother, Mr. Pat O'Connor, the letter which your Lord- 
 ships will find on page 1747, dated 3d December 1888. 
 
 "London, 'M Decemler 1888. 
 " Dear Pat — I am here in London since yesterday morning. 
 I was in Dublin two days. I got myself summoned for The Tinier. 
 I thought I could make a few pounds in the transaction." 
 
 My Lords, I am afraid there are a good many in- 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 431 
 
 (lividnnls wlio have made a few pounds in the trans- t. iiarring- 
 
 , • ton and the 
 
 action. InCorn.er 
 
 . O'Connor. 
 
 " I thought I could make a few pounds in the transaction, hut I 
 find I cannot, unless I would swear quare (queer) 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 my 
 health was very bad Avhen I Avas at home, and I thought I 
 would talce a short voyage and see a doctor at their expense. 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 
 pa]icr, the Frcrman, and sec how it Avill be on it. You need not mind 
 ic[)lving to this, as 1 am leaving this house as soon as I am examined, 
 which won't be longer than to-morrow, Tuesday. AVhatever way 
 it will end do not blame me for it. I tliought 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 cost if he has not it, after 
 the fair I may not need 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." 
 
 Wliat the queer things that he was asked to swear 
 were he told us. He told us that he was pressed (I am 
 not putting it too strongly) to say whether he could 
 mention any facts to implicate Mr. Parnell or the leaders 
 of this movement, or anyl)ody in tliis movement. His 
 answers on page 1747 are a little instructive, beginning 
 at Q. 31,985. He refers to having seen a man called 
 Walker, a name which your Lordships will recognise. 
 
 "Was that the first time you saw him? (A.) No, but that is 
 the first time I knew his name. (Q.) When did you see him first? 
 (A.) When I came to Dublin. ((^.) Were you asked by him 
 whether you couhl or could not sny anything to incriminate the 
 popular leaders in Ireland 1 (A.) He asked me to state every- 
 thing I could, and not leave anything back. (Q.) Were you not 
 asked whether you could incriminate any of the popular leaders 
 in Ireland 1 (A.) No, I do not think he did. (Q.) Will you 
 swear you were not 1 (A.) lie told me to swear everything, and 
 not to leave anything back, no matter what it was. ((>>.) Were you 
 
432 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 T. Harring- asked to tell ' queer things ' % Take care, O'Connor. (A.) What 
 Infornfer^''' ^'"^ "^^^"* ^y ' ^1"^®^ ^^"^SS ' "^ (Q.) Were you asked to tell 'queer 
 O'Connor, thmgs ' ? (A.) Well, he told me to tell everything I knew. (Q.) 
 Were you asked to tell * queer things ' % I use that phrase on pur- 
 pose. Answer, sir, you are on your oath. (A.) I do not know 
 how I will answer. (Q.) Were you asked to tell queer things ? 
 Ay or no ? (A.) Well, I luiderstood that he forced me rather 
 hard. (Q.) You understood that he forced you rather hard ? (A.) 
 Yes. (Q.) Was that to try and fix criminality upon some of the 
 Irish members ? (A.) Well, it was not just ; I told him that I 
 wanted to get out of the thing altogetlier, and to leave my house 
 (Q.) When he forced you rather hard, was it to try and get you to 
 fix criminality upon some of the Irish jnembers ? Ay or no 1 (A.) 
 I think not ; I do not remember what it was. (Q.) What Avas it 
 he forced you hard about % (A.) Oh ! about how miich I knew 
 about the moonlighting, or about Mr. Harrington. He said I 
 I should know more about Mr. Harrington than that, and that I 
 surely did Avhen I knew that much, and that I ought to tell it. 
 (Q.) Do you say Mr. Harrington was the only name he mentioned % 
 (A.) I do not remember that he mentioned any one else," and 
 so on. 
 
 My Lords, I dismiss this case by pointing out the 
 difficulties, the hardship positively, inflicted upon 
 men engaged in public life, as these men before 
 your Lordships are and have been, in being exposed 
 to defamation of their character, supported by such 
 porrupt and such rotten testimony as this, of this man 
 who, writing to his brother in the intimacy of tlieir close 
 relationship, tells him he comes to London thinking he 
 may get some money out of The, Times; who tells him 
 he is afraid he cannot get money out of TJie Itmes unless 
 he say " quare things"; who is afraid he will have to 
 go back penniless unless he says "quare things"; who 
 comes into the box and says the " quare things " one day, 
 and when he has left the box — I do not know whether 
 paid or not — after he has got such money as was to 
 come to him for his attendance here, then upon his 
 
xvin AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 433 
 
 oath, and when he finds liimself in a state of badr. n 
 
 arnng- 
 
 health, makes a declaration denying the truth of that l^rmeJ''^ 
 which was put forward as reliable evidence. o'Coimor. 
 
 I could examine this man's evidence at greater 
 length, I do not propose to do so. I may point out 
 one of the (jueer things he is said to have done was 
 helping the reinstatement of Mrs. Horan, with reference 
 to which, from the dates he gives, it is impossible he 
 could have taken part. However, it is really unim- 
 portant to dwell upon small trivial incidents of that 
 kind. I shall have later, when I have examined in full 
 the remaining evidence which bears upon the American 
 branch of the case, and which bears upon the letters, to 
 contrast the grave, the serious, the far-reaching defamatory 
 statements which are contained in these libels ; to show 
 your Lordships how utterly they fall short of any of those 
 charges, and how completely- — -I do not hesitate to say 
 it '<\t this moment — tlie charo;es themselves have in their 
 main substance and character crumbled and fallen to 
 pieces by the weight of the reckless extravagance which 
 has throufi^hout characterised them. 
 
 I find, my Lords, that there are still some members 
 that 1 have not referred to. One is Mr. T. D. Sullivan, t. d. 
 once Mayor of Dublin, and for many years proprietor ' 
 of The Nation. ]\ir. Sullivan is a man universally 
 respected, 1 may say by all classes in Leland ; it 
 is a rare thing to say perhaps of a popular leader. 
 Against him there is not a scintilla of evidence from 
 beginning to end. I think it right to tell your Lord- 
 ships something al)out iMr. T. D. Sullivan. The late Mr. 
 A. M. Sullivan, well known to the members of the bar, 
 was associated with J\Ir. T. D. Sullivan, the present 
 accused, in tlie management and proprietorship of llie 
 Nalion newspapei'. My liords, tlie course that The 
 
 2 P 
 
434 ''THE TIMES" EVIDENCE xviii 
 
 Nation newspaper has pursued with reference to public 
 movements is one that must be, and ought to be drawn 
 to your Lordships' attention, and will be proved in the 
 box by Mr. T. D. Sullivan. When that mistaken and 
 condemnable movement, as I believe it, the Fenian 
 movement, gathered strength in Ireland, Mr. A. M. 
 Sullivan and Mr. T. D. Sullivan were earnest in ()})posi- 
 tion to it and in condemnation of it persistently and 
 consistently in the columns of The Nation. For that 
 course of conduct they incurred a large measure of 
 popular odium. They were held up in the colunnis of 
 the paper of that wretched man Richard Pigott to pul)lic 
 obloquy as informers to the Castle ; but undeterred by 
 any such attacks they pursued consistently the course 
 which I have suggested. Mr. A. M. Sullivan and Mr. 
 T. D. Sullivan both were active members of the Irish 
 party, and, so far as I know, I believe there is no act in 
 the public or the private life of either of those men for 
 which the families of either of them, or the friends of 
 either of them, need blush or hang their heads. 
 
 O'Brien. Of Mr. William O'Brien I have already spoken. Your 
 Lordships will see him in the box. 
 
 O'Brien. Of Mr. P. O'Bricu, member of Parliament, one fact 
 has been proved against him, and I admit one fact of 
 consequence, not in connection with these charges, 
 nor with the Irish movement directly, Ijut, as 3'^our 
 Lordships will recollect, — the publication which he 
 made in Liverpool in reference to the manipulation 
 of the jury lists. I wish to distinguish. So far as 
 his publication consisted of an explanation and an ex- 
 posure of the fact that there was a systematised course 
 of jury-packing in the course of the trials that took 
 place in Dublin, I say he was perfectly within his 
 right in publishing it, and in exposing it. I say equally 
 
XVIII AGAINST THE MEMBERS CHARGED 435 
 
 he was in the Avroiig, and I do not defend or excuse 
 liim ; he is not my client, and I know not what lie 
 will sny, if he is called into the box, about it; I say 
 ('(jually he was indefensible and inexcusable, if he did 
 [>ublish that slip of paper which your Lordsliij)S may 
 recollect was annexed to the analysis of the jury panels, 
 and Avhich undou1)tedly was intended, or if not intended, 
 certainly was calculated to expose to odium the par- 
 ticular set of jurors mentioned in the analysis. But I 
 think your Tjordships will see there is a broad, a clear, 
 and an intelligible distinction l)etween the two. I have 
 had no communication with ]\[r. O'Brien. As I have 
 said, I am not his counsel, and I know not what Mr. 
 O'Brien will say in reference to that second head of 
 the charge against him. But I would again remind 
 your Tiordships that for tliis offence he was unquestion- 
 ably found guilty, and has sulVercd the penalty of the 
 law. 
 
 My Lords, the only remaining member of Parliament 
 (and it will be with some sense of relief that I have 
 to say to your Ijordships that 1 have now got to the 
 end of the consideration of this part of the case) is Mr. 
 John Barry, as to Avhom I am not aware that there 
 is one particle of evidence of one single act done or one 
 single speech delivered in the slightest or faintest degree 
 of an incriminatory character. If I am wrong I should 
 1)0 very glad to be corrected, and would not complain 
 of being interrupted. 
 
 And so, my Lords, I have ended my consideration 
 of the evidence as it seems to be pointed against par- 
 ticular memljers of Parliament. 
 
 My Lords, I omitted to supplement my observations 
 in reference to tlie Jloran cheque by two, which I think 
 of some consequence. The first is 1 draw your Lord- 
 
436 ''THE TIMES'' EVIDENCE xvm 
 
 ships' attention to the circumstances under whicli tliat 
 letter appears, and from whom it appears. As Mi-. 
 Soames told us, it comes from, and is put into his 
 possession l)y Phillips, the accountant employed for 
 the purpose of keeping the accounts, the disburse- 
 ments, of the League. lie therefore had the oppor- 
 tunity of seeing what was going on thei-e, and 
 obviously had access to the documents of the League. 
 I do not stop to dwell upon the fact that he appears to 
 have dishonestly used his position of trust for the pur- 
 pose of carrying off and of handing or, I know not 
 whether of selling, to Mr. Soames documents which 
 belonged to and relate to the business of his employers. 
 I have also to call your Lordships' attention to the fact 
 that during the very time at which this cheque was 
 given there was the man Farragher, whom I have classed 
 amongst the informer witnesses, and who had been in 
 the employment of the League for a consideral)le time, 
 by his own account ; and I draw your Lordships' atten- 
 tion to these circumstances, in order to justify and buihl 
 up the argument I was addressing to your Lordships, in 
 order to show that this, as I think, the character of the 
 application itself establishes, was an isolated and unusual 
 transaction. 
 
XIX. 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 I NOW come to tlie American Ijrancli of the question ; Tiie 
 and, in connection with tliat American branch I think cmillT^ 
 it will be convenient to weave into the narrative, ,so t'o" •''"'^ 
 
 ' Le Caroii. 
 
 that your Lordships may have it connected with refer- 
 ence to the story of the American conventions, tlie story 
 told l)y Le Caron as to the action of the secret body 
 with which he was associated. This American branch 
 of the (jnestion cannot fail to raise in your Lordships' 
 minds and tlie minds of thoughtful persons some very 
 grave considerations. 
 
 The population of America, in that vast continent is 
 a. community reaching the figures of between 00,000,000 
 and 70,000,000 of human beings ; of that number some 
 15,000,000 or 10,000,000 are Irish, or of Irish descent. 
 How conies it that, at least until comparatively recent 
 days, that vast multitude of persons were imbued, as 
 undoubtedly they were imbued, with deep feelings of 
 resentment to the government of the land they had left ? 
 That it was so is a fact, a pitiable fact. My Lords, the 
 explanation is to be found in the story of that misunder- 
 standing, misgovernment, misrule with which I have 
 l)een ol)liged to trouble you. Emigration from Ireland irish Emi- 
 has been, not the voluntary and healthy exodus ^^ '''°' 
 of a people seeking in fresh fields of enterprise new 
 
438 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Irish Enii- Careers in life, new fields for profitable employment of 
 gration. ^j^g^j. industrious labour, in great part at least it has 
 not been of that character ; they have felt, and they 
 have had cause to feel, that a great part of the emigra- 
 tion from Ireland, especially in its earlier years, has not 
 been voluntary emigration ; that they have l)een deported, 
 not emigrated ; that they have been driven from the 
 country to which they were heartily attached. 
 
 My Lords, any one who has visited America, and 
 who has had the singular pleasure of sailing up that 
 noble bay which leads to New York, and of passing, 
 before he landed, under Brooklyn Bridge, sees a sight 
 which, if he be an Irishman, fills him with some 
 humiliation and certainly tends to sadden the mind, 
 and take away that feeling of j)lcasurable exhilaration 
 with which one looks forward to the contemplation of 
 new and unknown scenes. For on the hillside of New 
 York his attention is drawn to a collection of huts as 
 miserable as any to be seen — I have seen them myself 
 — as miserable as any to be seen in Gal way or ]\layo. 
 What are they ? What is their history ? What purpose 
 have they served ? My Lords, they have served as 
 squatting refuges for the wretched creatures who have 
 been landed upon the hospital)le — for they have been 
 hospitable shores to the Irish race — on the hospitaljle 
 shores of America, but who have arrived penniless, un- 
 provided for, with no provision for tlieir employment, 
 and who have been compelled to seek refuge in these 
 wretched huts until some kind of honest employment 
 can be found for them. 
 
 The whole story of emigration is enough to account 
 for the feeling with which it is regarded by a large mass 
 of the population of Ireland. I have referred to these 
 squatter huts. I might refer to the stories told to this 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 439 
 
 day of the hospitals of New York, of the wards ; some Irish Emi- 
 of them named after laiicUords from whose estates men ^'"''^*''°"- 
 and women and children have been driven ; named after 
 those landlords becanse of the deaths, the disease, the 
 misery, that have been imported into them. 
 
 My Ijord.s, the Irish are mainly an agricultural 
 population ; yet so little f(.)re thought for their future 
 WMS shown, so little consideration for their future lives, 
 tliat in the absence of any location where such agricul- 
 tural knowledge as they possessed might be utilised, 
 they have in the main gravitated to and been found in 
 the large towns. 
 
 ]\ry Lords, their exodus has been like that of the 
 Israelites when they were seeking to escape from the 
 Egyptian bondage. They have, like them, made their 
 way to "a good land and a large"; but there was no 
 ]\loses to guide them ; and to them America has not 
 proved " a land flowing with milk and honey"; for as 
 to the great proportion of them, their lot has been hard. 
 The story of emigration of those days, and even of 
 recent times, has (.)ther, and even graver aspects ; the 
 demoralisation of youth ; the loss of that chiefest treasure 
 to man}^ a guileless girl ; the ill-provision in emigrant 
 ships of former days, when inspection was not as it has 
 been in recent times, emigration in rotten ships, such 
 as too often proved the coffins and graves of intending 
 emijTrants. 
 
 My Lords, it is not remarkable from these con- 
 siderations that under such conditions as these, 
 and with such associations as these facts recall, that 
 tlie Irish should look with distrust upon emigration, 
 and should have l)rouQ;ht with them to America 
 feelings not kindly to the government which they 
 bclie^'ed had driven them away. Their emigration 
 
440 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Irish Emi- has been mainly neither the emigration of the family 
 ^''^ ^°"' group, nor of the village eommunity ; but it has been 
 the emigration of the unit of the family, of the young 
 man or the young girl, away from the influence of 
 friends away from the influence of family, and the 
 community amongst which they lived. And therefore 
 it is not remarkable that they have not yet achieved 
 that position which their energy and their intelligence, 
 I hope, will accomplish for them. They are to-day, I 
 regret to say it, too much the Gibeonites in the labour 
 theatre of the world. 
 
 My Lords, in these considerations is it to l)e wondered 
 at that the Irish should have entertained the stroma; and 
 resentful feelings which unquestionably they have ? 
 Nay, is it not remarkable, as I shall develop to your 
 Lordships later, in view of these considerations, that 
 under impulses and teachings for which I take credit on 
 behalf of those I represent, they have in these later 
 times linked their strength, given their money, cond)iued 
 their energies to amelioratinfii; the condition of their 
 kindred in L'eland by open methods of constitutional 
 redress. My Lords, I could not better express the 
 feeling which was entertained during the Fenian move- 
 ment in America, than by recalling the celebrated expres- 
 sion of one of the distinguished children of Ireland at that 
 time, for I am liappy to say that Ireland has contri- 
 buted to America distinmiished men, and amouo- them 
 several of the Signatories of the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. She has given statesmen, generals, soldiers 
 to the American army ; and one of those, General 
 Sheridan, whose genius is described by Lord AVolseley as 
 one of the most remarkable the world has known, is 
 reported to have said at that time: "An American by 
 birth, I love liberty ; an Irishman by descent, I hate 
 
XIX THE AiMERIC/lN CONNECTION 441 
 
 oppression ; and if I were in Ireland, I should be a Irish Emi- 
 Fenian." This feeling was shown in that movement. ^''^ '""' 
 It w^as shown in their joining in the Canadian Raid. 
 It was shown in their l)eing the main support in men 
 and ill money of the Fenian movement ; and I think 
 nothing is so remarkal)le, and I will add so gratifying, 
 as to know that the Fenian force of Irish- Americans, 
 wliicJi at the lowest computation amounted to between 
 200,000 and 300,000, had in the years 188G-87 
 dwindled in the Clan-na-Gael Association to between 
 20,000 and 30,000. My Lords, it is the boast, and it 
 is the justifiable boast, of Mr. Parnell, that he, with the 
 assistance notaljly of ]\lr. Davitt, has been the first man 
 who has ever got the Irish- American people to combine 
 and to lend their assistance in a movement that was 
 constitutional, and that was within the law. 
 
 I must trouble your Lordships at some length with 
 this liistory, because of its importance, and because, in 
 the account of the incidents to which it relates, without 
 much addition from me, the story and the vindication 
 of JMr. Parnell's policy will be told. 
 
 ]\1y Lords, Mr. Davitt paid the first visit to America, Davitt's 
 in relation to the movement whi('h afterwards became 
 known l)y the name of the Land League movement, in 
 1878; and I will read to you in this connection the 
 puljlished documents. 
 
 This was puljlished in the New York World in July 
 1882, but it related to events in 1878, and I will only 
 read to you one passage from it. Mr. Davitt says : — 
 
 " When I was in piison I spent my time thinking of Avhat plan 
 could lie j)roposed which would luiite all Irishmen upon some one 
 common ground. I saw that the movements for the independence 
 of [rclniid had failed for two reasons : fust, that there had never 
 hcon one in which the pco]:)le were united. Second, hecause the 
 
442 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 movements had been wholly sentimental. I saw that for Irishmen 
 to succeed they must he united, and that they must have a i)ractical 
 issiie to put before Englishmen, and the world at large. Sentiment 
 camiot be relied upon to move neighbouring nations, and when 
 changes of great political importance, involving an alteration in the 
 policy of a country like England, conservative, and somewhat slo^v 
 to move, are to be brought about, there nuist be something practical 
 in the issue put forward. I saw all this, and I made U}) my mind 
 that the oidy issue upon Avhich Rome liulers, Nationalists, 01)struc- 
 tionists, and each and every shade of opinion existing in Ireland, 
 could be united, was the Land Question. I at first })roposed my 
 plan to leaders of the Nationalists " (Nationalists, my Lord, at that 
 time meant, in 1878, the physical force paity, or principally so) 
 " when a short time out of prison, but they refused to have anything 
 to do with constitutional agitation. Among nations of the present 
 day secret political associations are an anomaly. 
 
 " If the weak have a just cause they can, by presenting its 
 claims to recognition, force the strong to grant them justice. They 
 can do this purely as the result of public opinion ; in other words, 
 influencing the party of the strong in their favour by winning public 
 opinion on their side. Now, it nmst Ije perfectly a})})arent to every 
 one that if you wish to reach public opinion and to influence it, you 
 must do everything openly. The converse of this would be so 
 absurd that it is scarcely Avorth discussing. A secret society then 
 makes the use of the only weapon of the weak, if not imi)Ossil)le. 
 exceedingly difficult. I therefore resolved that any new })lan in 
 connection with Ireland should not be placed for operation in the 
 hands of any one party, although I Avas Avilling, if the Nationalists 
 chose to adopt it as a new departure, to let them inaugurate it. 
 They refused, hoAvever. I visited personally every man Avho Avas 
 at all jirominent in connection Avith Irish attairs, and in order to 
 find out the state of feeling here, I came to this country u])on a 
 lecturing tour. I Avent all through, and satisfied myself that the 
 issue Avas one Avhich Avould be adopted by the Irish in America, 
 More than that, I convinced myself that the issue Avas one Avhich 
 would command the respect of the Americans themselves." 
 
 One other thing in this connection I must also read 
 in the same publication, and referring to the same 
 period ; it is not long, and I should like, in order to 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 443 
 
 make my statement quite complete, to be allowed to 
 read it. The propositions which lie thought ought to l)e 
 insisted upon, were seven. 
 
 " 1. The first and indispensable requisite in a representative of 
 Ireland in the Parliament of England to l)e a public profession of 
 his belief in the unalienable i-ight of the Irish people to self-govern- 
 ment, nnd recognition of the fact that want of self-government is the 
 chief want of Ireland. 
 
 " 2. An exclusive Irish representation, with the view of exhibit- 
 ing Ireland to the world in the light of her peoi)le's oi)inions and 
 national aspirations, together with an uncompromising opposition to 
 the Government upon every prejudiced or coercive policy. 
 
 " 3. A demand for immediate im})rovement of the land system 
 by such a thorough change as would prevent the peasantry of 
 Ireland from being its victims in the future. This change to form 
 the introduction to a system of small proprietorships similar to 
 what nt present obtains in France, Belgium, and Prussia. Such 
 land to 1)0 ])urchased or held directly from the State. To ground 
 this demand upon the reasonable fact that, as the land of Ireland 
 formerly belonged to the people (being but nominally held in trust 
 for them by chiefs or heads of clans for that among other purposes), 
 it is the duty of the Government to give compensation to the 
 landlords for talcing back that which was bestowed ui)on their 
 progenitors after l>eing stolen from the people, in order that the 
 State can again become the custodian of the land for the peo])le- 
 owners. 
 
 " 4. Legislation for the encoiu'agement of Irish industries ; 
 development of Ireland's natural resources ; substitution, as much 
 as practicable, of cultivation for grazing ; reclamation of waste 
 land ; protection of Irish fisheries ; and improvement of peasant 
 dwellings. 
 
 " 5. Assimilation of the county to the borough franchise, and 
 rcforin of the grand jury laws ; as also laws afifecting convention in 
 Ireland. 
 
 " G. A national solicitude on the question of education by 
 vigorous efTorts for improving and advancing the same, together 
 with every precaution to be taken against it being made an anti- 
 national one. 
 
 " 7. The right of the Irish people to carry arms." 
 
444 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 Piirneii's go mucli for Mr. Davitt's first visit. Mr. PariieH's 
 
 1879-80. visit began in the year 1879 and ended early in 
 
 l: 
 
 By tlie end of 1879-80 the policy, the active policy 
 as I may properly describe it, pursued in Parliament Ijy 
 Mr. Parnell and his followers from 1875, had already 
 begun to inspire in the minds of multitudes of the Irish 
 people the hope and the belief, the growing belief, that 
 from Parliament much good might l)e attained. If yi)ur 
 I^ordships ask for proof of that, I would refer you to 
 that remarkable document which is set out at page 2470. 
 I mean the report, the secret report, of John Devoy, who, 
 in company with one General Milieu, I think the name 
 was, visited Ireland and reported to the secret organisation 
 in America the state of the Fenian party in Ireland. I 
 do not propose to read that document, but I would 
 summarise it thus : — 
 
 He records the discord among the Fenian body 
 owing to conflicting claims to leadership on the part, on 
 the one hand, of the Stephens party in the Supreme 
 Council, and of the action of O'Donovan Rossa and his 
 friends and his adherents. He records the fact of the 
 expulsion in 1877 of various former members of this 
 Secret Society in Ireland, because of their adhesion to 
 the Home Rule movement. He speaks of a consider- 
 able sum of money having been sent to Ireland for the 
 purchase of arms, large sums of money. I may say in 
 passing that is in conflict with another statement (that 
 of Delaney) made on that subject. He speaks of the 
 hairbrained persistence in a certain section of that body 
 in the belief that it is a scheme of arms and insurrection, 
 and in effect adds, that speaking of the movement as a 
 whole, it is practically in a state of collapse and disor- 
 ganisation, and he adds what is not unimportant, that 
 
THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 445 
 
 lie believes the county it was most powerful in was the parneirs 
 county of Mayo. ^^^^^ 
 
 My Lords, Mr. Parnell paid liis visit at the date 1 
 have told your Lordships. He was at a later date pressed 
 to re- visit America. 
 
 I will read, my Lords, a little out of date, from the 
 Freeman's Journal, 17th February 1881, a letter pub- 
 lished in the Irish World and in the English press. Mr. 
 Parnell begins tliat letter by acknowledging the receipt 
 of a resolution passed at the meeting of the National 
 League in L'eland, requesting him to proceed to America. 
 After acknowledging the resolution it proceeds : — 
 
 "Paris, Uth February 1881. 
 " To the Irish National Land League. 
 
 "Gp]NTLE]MEN — I have been honoured by the receipt of a 
 resolution adoi)ted at yotir meeting of the 8th instant requesting rae 
 to inoceed at once to America, Avith the object of securing the 
 sym])athy of the American people, and the co-o})cration of the Irish 
 nation there. After full and grave consideration of your resolution 
 and of the general situation, and due consultation with friends 
 whose opinions are of great value, I have decided that it is my duty 
 to remain in Ireland during the present crisis, and this for reasons 
 Avhich 1 will shortly detail to you. 
 
 " Our movement in America, although of great importance and 
 capable of immense development, depends entirely ni)on the stand 
 Avhich is made in Ireland. If we are worthy of the occasion here, 
 the American people and the Irish nation in Ainerica will give us 
 proportionate sympathy. If the spirit and courage of our people at 
 home be maintained, the resources of the whole Irish race abi'oad 
 will be at our disposal; while if there is the slightest flinching or 
 iM^action in Ireland it will produce disastrous results in America. 
 Noi- can I agi'ce with you that for the remainder of the present 
 session very little is to be expected from ParliamcMitary action. The 
 expelled Irish members have almost luianimously decided to remain 
 in their places and offer every resistance whicli the forms of the 
 House of Commons still permit to the jtassnge of the Coercion and 
 Arms Iiills. In this resolution 1 fullj'^ concurred. 
 
446 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Parnell's " Tlic result of the renewed exertions of the i)arty since the 
 
 18"9'80 ^^'^' iViiat and the ado})tion of the gagging resohition has lieun so 
 far most encouraging. Moreover, it woukl be scarcely fair of nie 
 to leave the party to face the uphill work entailed upon them, and 
 I think I can be of some service during the passage of the Laml 
 Bill in pointing out in what respects it may fall short of a linal 
 settlement of the Land Question, should it fail to oiler an adecjuate 
 solution. The Government of England having adopted the rule of 
 coercion and intimidation against our people at home and their 
 representatives in Parliament, and having practically attempted to 
 drive both one and the other outside the limits of the Constitution 
 by the use of unconstitutional and illegal means in Parliament and 
 the country, two courses appeared open to us. The first, that the 
 Irish members should retire in a body from the House of Commons, 
 and announce to their constituents that the constitutional weapon 
 of Parliamentary representation had been snatched from their hands, 
 and that nothing remained but sullen acquiescence or an appeal to 
 force in opposition to that force which had been used against us. 
 The second and only other alternative appeared to be that we should 
 steadfastly labour on, deepening the lines and Avidening the area of 
 our agitation, ap})ealing to the masses of the population of England 
 and Scotland, Avho are much less represented in the House of 
 Commons than are the masses in Ireland. A})})ealing, I say, against 
 the territorialism and shopocracy which dominate Parliament, to 
 the working-men and agricultural labourers of Britain, Avho verily 
 have no interest in the misgovernment and persecution of Ireland. 
 I have dismissed the first of these courses from consideration, but 
 the second alternative presents to us many elements of hoi)e and 
 ultimate success. As I have said. Parliament is at })resent governed 
 by the landlords, manufacturers, and shopkeepers of Great Britain. 
 At election times the springs are set in motion by the Avire-puUers 
 of the two political parties, and the masses of the electors are driven 
 to the polling booths to register the decrees of some caucus Avith 
 place and power, and not the good of the people as its object. 
 Public opinion in England is also deliberately and systematically 
 perverted with regard to Ireland. But a vigorous agitation in 
 England and Scotland would change all this. The near aj)proach 
 of the household suffrage in the comities — a practical certainty 
 befoi'e the next general election — will sound the doom of the English 
 land system, Avhile the starting of a working-man's or agricultuial 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 447 
 
 lal)ourer's candidate in every British constitnency would soon bring raruell's 
 House of Commons Radicalism to its senses. A juncture between lo^qoA 
 the Etiglish Democracy and Irish Nationalism upon the basis of the 
 restoration of Ireland's right to make her owii laws, the overthrow 
 of teriitoiialism in ])oth countries, and the enfranchisement of labour 
 from crushing taxes for the maijitenance of standing ai'mies and 
 navies, Avould prove irresistible, would terminate the strife of cen- 
 turies, arid secure lasting friendship, based on mutual interests and 
 contidonce, between the two nations. I would say in conclusion 
 that there is nothing in recent events, or in the coming measure of 
 coercion, to compel the Irish ]jeople to modify in the slightest degree 
 their action of open organisation and passive resistance. All 
 coercion <lirccted against a nation must work rather by intimidation 
 than ])y its enforcement, since from the nature of the case it can 
 only be aj){)licd to a very limited number of persons out of the 
 mass it is intended to terrorise. The Government will rely much 
 upon the intimidation jiroduced 1)y the first arrests, but if the gaps 
 are all filled, and the raidcs closed, in all i)rol)ability no second 
 attempt will be made to break them. I have noticed that a j))-o- 
 position has been made to su])ply the i)lace of the present open 
 organisation by secret committees. I could not approve of such a 
 couise, and for many reasons, nor do I thiidc it would have the 
 slightest chance of success. The Land Le.'igue is not engaged in 
 any illegal enterprise, and it is a matter of notoriety that a s})ecial 
 jury of the city of Dublin, after a careful investigation extending 
 over many days, by a majority of ten to two, declared the organisa- 
 tion to 1)c perfectly legal and constitutional. I do not believe the 
 arrests will lie numerous, although probably a Avidcsj)read system 
 of tenorism by means of warning conveyed to individuals through 
 the })(>lice will be adopted. Disregard these threats, let no man 
 leave his post, continue your organisation as before, and have others 
 ready to take the place of those who may be arrested. By this 
 policy of passive endurance the Irish people Avill command the 
 respect of the Avorld, and will prove themselves worthy of freedom. 
 
 " To the tenant farmers I will say that theirs is now a position 
 of great resi)onsil)ility. 
 
 " Upon their action during the next few months probably 
 depends the future of Ireland for a generation. Great exertions 
 have been made for them, the sympathies of America have been 
 enlisted, and practical help is jiouriiig in, and will continue to pour 
 
448 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Paruell's ill, from that country. Michael Davitt has manfully returned to 
 1879' 80 '^^^^ ^^ horrors of penal servitude, and many others in eveiy part 
 of Ireland are willing to face imprisonment for their sake. The 
 tenant farmers are not called upon to make great sacrifices, or to 
 run much risk themselves. They are asked to refuse to pay unjust 
 rents, and not to take farms from which others have been evicted 
 for such refusal. If they collapse and start back at the first 
 pressure, they will show themselves umvorthy of all that has been 
 done for them during the past eighteen months, they Avill prove to 
 the Avorld that they are fit only for the lot of slavery which has 
 been theirs, and that oppression and tyranny should be their normal 
 condition. If, on the other hand, they rememl)er our precepts, and 
 bear themselves as men willing to suffer a little for the good of all, 
 they will make for themselves a name in Irish history, and their 
 children may speak proudly of them as the precursors of Irish liberty. 
 I have every confidence that they will be staunch, and that the 
 spirit which has been created Avill survive every persecution and 
 outlive temporary coercion. 
 
 "The honour of Ireland is in the keeping of her six hundred 
 thousand tenant farmers, and I ask them to preserve the union and 
 organisation which have already gained such great results. If they 
 do this and persist in their refusal to pay unjust rents, and in their 
 refusal to take farms from Avhich others have been unjustly evicted, 
 a brilliant victory and the peace and prosperity of our country will 
 be their near and certain reward. — I am, gentlemen, yours faithfully, 
 
 "Charles Stewart Parnell." 
 
 I am not concerned at this moment to enter into an 
 elaborate justification of this poUcy, though 1 tliink 1 
 could successfully do it, AVhat I am at present con- 
 cerned upon is, to fix the attention of the court on the 
 central idea of the policy which Mr. Parnell is there 
 propounding. He disclaims resort to physical force, and 
 the keynote of the policy is this : appeal to the people 
 of England, not to classes, l)ut to the people of England ; 
 and he points out, what again and again he afterwards, 
 and others, pointed out, that between the people of Eng- 
 land and the Irish people there is no just cause of 
 
THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 449 
 
 quarrel, or of difference, and no conflicting interests. Pameii's 
 He holds the people of England, who in bygone days S79-80. 
 of misgovernment were not their own masters, not 
 accountable for that past misgovernment and misrule, 
 and he l)clievcs that, l>y reaching the mind and en- 
 lightening the intelligence of the people of England, 
 it can l3C l)rought home to the masses of those people 
 tliat it is tlie interest of England as well as tlic interest 
 of Ij-eland that this, which he describes as " international 
 strife of centuries," should be ended. 
 
 ]\Iy L(n(ls, that is the policy which he has con- 
 sistently pursued, which has already borne hopeful fruit ; 
 for I say that to-day the Irish and the English people 
 are brought closer together than they have ever been in 
 tlie history of the last 100 years, and that has been 
 1 )ecause they have been appealed to, because that appeal 
 has had earnest backing by earnest men in this country, 
 in Scotland, and in AVales ; and that is the policy, the 
 pitli, the marrow of the policy which Mr. Parnell has 
 always j^ursued. 
 
 My Lords, there is one notable fact which I must 
 mention in relation to the first visit of Mr. Parnell. lie 
 delivered during a visit that was a brief one, for the 
 urgency of the general election recalled him to Ireland 
 early in 1880, altogether GO speeches, and of those 60 
 s])ceclies there is not one that the prosecution have 
 thouglit right to call attention to except the Cincinnatti 
 speech, the speech known by the name of the " Last The " Last 
 Link Speech ; " and in connection witli that speech the speech."' 
 Attorney-General made a very remarkable statement. 
 At i:>age 221 he said : — 
 
 " But for that speech ]\lr. Parnell could not have stirred one 
 single step in America." 
 
 ]\ly Lords, the fact is that that was one of the very 
 
 2 G 
 
450 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 Parneii'a last speeclics whicli he did make out of 60. The state- 
 1879-80. ment therefore is entirely wide of the mark. 8ome 
 of those earUer speeches I will presently call your 
 attention to. 
 
 My Lords, I do not feel called upon to utter one 
 single word of apology, even assuming that Mr. Parnell 
 did make that speech verhatim et literatim as it is 
 reported in one newspaper he did. As a matter of 
 fact it is not so reported in other newspapers, to which 
 attention will be called, and as a matter of fact Mr. 
 Parnell is under the impression that he was misrc- 
 ported in the account of that speech as it appeared in 
 the Irish World. In the reports of the local Cincinnatti 
 papers, as I am informed, at all events in some of them, 
 that phrase nowhere occurs. But, as I say, I do not 
 intend to offer one word of apok)gy even if it had 
 been said. Whatever Mr. Parnell's political views are, 
 those are not what your Lordships are trying ; this is 
 not a court constituted for trying or judging or con- 
 demning political opinion. This is a tribunal supposed 
 to be constituted to determine, ay or no, whether Mr. 
 Parnell was in direct complicity with crime. But as 1 
 have alluded to that matter, I think I am justified in 
 saying this : the Lish peoj)le have maintained, and will 
 still continue to maintain, their claim to the natural 
 right of making, in their own land, in an assembly of 
 their own countrymen, laws which relate to their own 
 local affairs ; and if your Lordships will look at the 
 history of every claim made in bygone times, in relation 
 to the Grattan Parliament of 1782, in relation to the 
 O'Connell movement of 1840, in relation to the Home 
 Pvule movement of 1870, in relation to the Home L*ule 
 scheme — that great policy of reconciliation as it was 
 called of 1886 — your Lordships will find that there is 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 451 
 
 110 period in the history of their political movements in Pameii's 
 wliirJi the Irish people, or the Irish race in that greater isrg'-so. 
 Ireland beyond the seas, were not willing to accept tliat 
 right in amity with the rest of the enijjire and under 
 the Crown. 
 
 My Lords, these speeches, which I desire to read 
 fully to your Lordships, were made by Mr. Parnell 
 during that tour. I have already given your Lordships 
 some account of the way in which he was received. I 
 have already shown you, in the cross-examination of the 
 mail Le (Jaron or Beach, that his statements that the 
 audiences ]\lr. Parnell addressed, and the committees who 
 prepared his reception in every place, were memljers of 
 the Clan-na-Gael, or principals of the CJaii-na-Gael, are • 
 entirely unfounded. Your Lordships will have further 
 evidence al)(.)ut that, and you will find tliat politicians 
 of all shades and opinions, politicians of all shades upon 
 questions of Irish politics, judges, governors, mayors of 
 towns, all joined in giving Mr. Parnell what was truly 
 a national reception. 
 
 Tlie three speeches to which I should desire 
 specially to refer are ; one delivered 011 his arrival in 
 New York, in Maddisou Square, one he delivered in 
 Poston, and one he delivered at Congress. I vv'ill read 
 j)assi)nes at least, from the first, although I feel reluctant 
 to trouble yoiu- Ivordships witli reading the whole of it 
 at this stnge, l)ut 1 will call your Lordships' attention 
 to tlie mode in wliicli Mr. Parnell was received. 
 
 \ have got l)efore me a statement of the executive Rereptinn 
 
 . , , 1 • J 1 j_ ^ J- Committee. 
 
 committee who were appointed to make arrangements 
 for liis reception. I recognise the names of some of 
 them as men of distinction ; my knowledge, however, 
 extends only to a small numlier, but youi- Lordships 
 will liave evidence of those who know the names to 
 
452 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Parneii's prove tlie fcict tliat, out of the entire numljcr, not 
 1879-80. more than eight or ten were known to belong to, what 
 I may call for brevity, the extreme section of the Irish 
 American party, and the resolutions that were passed at 
 the meeting to make arrangements, presided over by 
 Dr. Maouire, who was moved to the chair on the motion 
 of Chief Justice Alker, were in these terms. Judge 
 Alker made a speech expressing himself in entire 
 sympathy with the Irish land agitation, and these 
 resolutions were adopted : — 
 
 " Eesolved — In view of the fact thiit a great agitation exists in 
 Ireland for the reform of the Land Laws, that such agitation is 
 supported by a large and important section of the people of Ireland, 
 ♦ of whom Mr. Charles Stewart Parnell is the aclvnowlcdged leader. 
 The subject is well worthy of earnest consideration on the part of 
 Irish American citizens and friends of human freedom, irrespective 
 of nationality, in the United States. Resolved, further- — -That as 
 the public press has announced that Mr. Charles StcAvart Parnell is 
 about to visit the United States to lay the case of the Irish tenant 
 farmers, and a })roposal for the reform of the system of huul tenure, 
 before the American people, Avith the view of securing their 
 sympathy and support, it is the sense of this meeting that the Irish 
 people of this city, and those who sympathised with them, should 
 give him the opportunity he desires; that, to carry out this object 
 a suitable public hall should be engaged for an evening hereafter to 
 be decided upon, so that Mr. Parnell may deliver an address or 
 lecture stating the object of his coming, the aims and piu'poses of 
 the Irish National Land League, and the manner in which American 
 sympathisers are expected to help the movement. liesolved — That 
 an executive committee be appointed, with })ower to add to its 
 numbers, to carry out the objects before stated, to make all neces- 
 sary arrangements, and that it be requested to invite the co- 
 operation of the Irish National, Literary, Benevolent, and Temper- 
 ance Societies of New York." 
 
 Address of My Lords, upon his arrival Mr. Parnell was presented 
 
 New York, with an address by the Hon. J. E. Develin, a gentleman 
 
 who is described to me as Conservative in his politics, 
 
THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 453 
 
 and ail eminent and respectable citizen of New York ; rameii's 
 and tlie address, wliicli I will now read to your Lord- 1879-80. 
 ships, was presented to Mr. Parnell on behalf of the 
 citizens of New York. 
 
 " "We bid you Avelcome to our shores, and imi)lore ' God s])ccd 
 to your mission.' In these greetings and good wishes there is the 
 (•())ijoint. expression of many peojiles. The Irish element in our 
 citizenship, with a characteristic pride of patriotism, give to you a 
 lieart-wliole love for your manly Irishism, your unswerving devotion 
 to Ireland's cause. The citizens of other foreign origin, recognising 
 no circumscription of race, religion, or region Avhen humanity is to 
 be sustained and the cause of justice upheld, offer you their earnest 
 sympathies in the battle for a nation's relief, while the Americans 
 pro})er, regarding your proud American descent, claim a distributive 
 share of the honour attaching to your public career, and join in 
 I)aying tribute to your private worth. On all grounds representa- 
 tives of all nationalities unite in this reception. 
 
 " It is not for us to enter into political disquisitions to-day, to 
 trace efl'ects to their cause, or mar the oneness of a welcoming 
 demonsti\ation by the introduction of topics which might alienate 
 some amongst us. It is enough for our purpose that a nation is 
 on the brink of famine through no fault of its own, and that you 
 have come to us Avith the confiding endorsement of an afflicted 
 ]icople to plead their cause. Without entering into an examination 
 of the landlord system of Ireland with its feudal associations and 
 assiunjitiotis, we have suflicient matter for thought and exertion in 
 tlie facts that the people are stiffering in want of the bare necessaries 
 of life, that food and fuel and raiment are scant or unattainable, 
 that famine impends, and that a recurrence of the fever graves is 
 not ail improbability, unless a generous aid interpose to arrest the 
 })rogress of calamity. As Ave understand, sir, your mission is an 
 exposition of the state of Ireland ; to tell of yoTU- own knoAvledge 
 of the sufferings of the poor, to invoke remedial assistance for 
 distress in the present, and to point out the means by Avhich that 
 distress may not be, as heretofore, a period almost of pecunial 
 affliction. We aAvait Avith anxiety your programme of action in 
 these regards. It is due to 3^ou, hoAvever, to say in anticipation 
 that Ave repudiate the communistic complexion sought to be placed 
 upon your movement. Your policy, sii', has preceded you. lour 
 
454 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 Parnell's 
 
 Visit, 
 
 1879-80. 
 
 Maddison 
 
 Square 
 
 Speech. 
 
 principles are appreciated. AVe hold that there is no ground for 
 the imputation of communism in the advocacy oi a people's right to 
 a living from the land of their birth — the land whose productive- 
 ness is the proceed of the sweat of their face, the lahour of their 
 hands, and the exercise of their skill; and your hest vindication 
 personally, sir, is that, disregarding the selfish instincts of the order 
 to which you belong, you have thrown yourself into the people's 
 interests, holding that popular protection is paramount to class 
 monopoly. All we can do in the present is to promise you the 
 moral support of our sympathy, the material aid of our practical 
 exertioiis here ; and while we may not speak authoritatively for 
 other states and cities, yet we have had sxifficient foreshadowings 
 to indicate that everywhere in this great land you Avill meet with a 
 reception and response worthy of the high reputation Avhich in your 
 person has proved the attendant on private merit and the accom- 
 paniment of patriotic worth ; and to justify the hope that on your 
 return to the land of your love and labours you Avill take back with 
 you the assured respect and confidence of the free people of this 
 free land." 
 
 Now, my Lords, to say that that is a reception com- 
 mittee, that that is an address "bossed" — to use Le Caron's 
 or Beach's expression — by this illegal secret society, 
 is the sheerest absurdity and the sheerest nonsense. 
 
 My Lords, at present I will oidy troul)le you with 
 some passages from one speech wliicli it is necessary, 
 and I think desirable, that 1 should at this stage read, 
 viz. the first speech that Mr. Parnell made at IMaddison 
 Square, in New York, on his arrival there. 
 
 This is a report from the Irisli World, of the 4th of 
 January 1880. 
 
 " I have to thank you in the first place for the kind cordiality 
 of your reception, and I have to apologise in advance for my 
 imperfections, and to regret that the great cause which I stand here 
 to-night to plead before the people of New York has not been 
 entrusted to far abler and better hands. But, ladies and gentlemen, 
 I fear not for the cause. Imperfect and inade(iuate as must be the 
 way in which I shall place it before you, I feel confident that from 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 455 
 
 its f^rcatncss and its justice, it needs no efl'ort oti my ]);iit to set it Parnell's 
 
 before vou in sucli a way as to have tlie heartiest svnipathv of this ^"'-l'*' 
 
 " . , , . . J I J 1879-80. 
 
 grcnt and fi'ec nation. The American people occu})y to-day a proud 
 
 position in respect to tlu"s <|uestion, a position which, as one who 
 
 lioMsts of some Amci'icjui hlood, I feel justly ])rond. And I am 
 
 glad when I think 1 may have had some moral share in directing 
 
 the attention of this country to our cause. Tlic American nation 
 
 has, by connnon consent, been made the ar1)itrator in this great 
 
 strugglo for land in Ireland. AVithin the last few days a most 
 
 extraordinary occurrence has taken place — the hindlords of Ireland, 
 
 for the first time in their history, have recognised their true position 
 
 as culprits, and have come before the bar of American pul)lic 
 
 opiiuon to plead their cause as best they may. I rejoice that the 
 
 pages of the New York Herald (at this jioint the speaker Avas 
 
 interrupted by a storm of hisses lasting for some minutes). He 
 
 continued : There is no necessity to hiss the New York Ilerald. It 
 
 has certainly been indirectly of the greatest possible service to our 
 
 catisc. I repeat that I rejoice that its pages have been opened to 
 
 tlie landlords' side of the question. I rejoice that a man of great 
 
 ability like? Mr. Kavanagh has come forward to make the best 
 
 defence he can for the accursed system that prevails in Ireland. I 
 
 thirdv people in this country will now feel an interest in a (piestion 
 
 which they could not have felt upon a mere ex 'parte statement. 
 
 And it is fitting that the peoi)lc of America should know the very 
 
 best that can be said of the landlords. Now I Avish to explain 
 
 very shortly our objects in visiting this country, and I may say 
 
 that the intention we originally formed has been considerably 
 
 modified by the pressure of circumstances. Originally we proposed 
 
 only to address you on behalf of our political organisation, but the 
 
 course of events in Ireland has culminated so rapidly — a terrible 
 
 far and widespread famine is so imminent — that we felt constrained 
 
 to abandon oiu* original intention, and to leave ourselves open to 
 
 receive from the })eople of America money for the purposes of our 
 
 political organisation, and also money for the relief of the pressing 
 
 distress in Ireland. We propose, then, to form two funds, one for 
 
 the relief of distress, and the other for the purely political purpose 
 
 of forwarding an organisation. These fluids will be kept entirely 
 
 distinct, so that the donors will be aflbrded the o[iportunity of 
 
 doing as they please in the matter. It has been suggested by a 
 
 vciy itillueutial paper in this city that wo ought to devote our 
 
456 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Painell's attention only to the relief of the distress, and that we should 
 t87q'80 •i*^*''^ ^^^^ committee which has been proposed l»y the New York 
 Herald, for the relief of distressed Irish landlords and the British 
 Government in general. 
 
 "But if we acce])ted the very good advice that has heen so 
 charitably extended to us in the shape of Avords within the last 
 few days, I am afraid we sho\dd incur the imputation of putting 
 the cart before the horse. (A voice : ' The Herald is getting well 
 paid.') The cause of the present distress is an unequal and 
 artificial system of land tenure which prevails in Ireland. The 
 efl'ect of that cause is, of course, the distress, and while we take 
 care to do the best we can — and the best we can will be but little 
 — to relieve the distress, Ave must also take care that we take 
 advantage of the unexampled opportunity which is now presented 
 to us for the purpose of swee])ing aAvay the bad system of 1847 
 and subsequent years. When the great Irish famine took })laee 
 America came forward first among the nations with unexampled 
 liberality. But did the liberality prevent the famine ? Did it 
 prevent millions dying of starvation or the pestilence which 
 followed? Did it prevent the banishment of many more millions? 
 Did it prevent the scenes in Ireland in those years — the scenes on 
 board the emigrant ships? No! No charity that can be given by 
 America will avail to prevent Irish distress. That must be thc 
 duty of the British Government, and we nnist see that Ave shame 
 the Government into a sense of its obligations. Where is the 
 process of charity to end ? Are Ave to be compelled continually 
 every ten or twelve years to appear as mendicants before the 
 Avorld ? Then I say to the peo})le of this country : ' If you Avish 
 to rescue us from that position, help us in destroying the system 
 which brings it on.' America subscribed, and subscribed liberally, 
 in those years. The people of Ireland living in this country have 
 been subscribing ever since. (A voice : ' It all goes to the knuT 
 lords.') My friend in the croAvd has anticii)ated me by telling you 
 that it goes to the landlords. Yes, your hard-earned savings that 
 you have sent Avith such true devotion to your felloAV-countrymen 
 over there have gone in payment of excessive rents, and in Ijolster- 
 ing up this terrible system. I said just now that Ave must shame 
 the British Government into a sense of its obligations to Ireland in 
 this matter. But I regret that they have shoAvn their usual want 
 of recognition of these obligations up to the present. What was 
 
THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 457 
 
 the Irish Chief Secretary's reply to those who waited upon him Pamell's 
 
 Visit, 
 1879-80. 
 
 and urged hira to establish fuel depots throughout the wastes of ' 
 
 Ireland ? For I must explain to those Avho are not acquainted 
 with Irish matters that almost all Ireland is dependent for its fuel 
 upon the turf that is cut in the hogs. This fuel, owing to the 
 excessive rains during the whole summer, is in a state of mud. It 
 is ciitiiely unfit to burn, and, in addition to the pressure of hunger, 
 we have added the ]>ressure of cold. Well, Mr. Lowther, when he 
 was asked to cstal»lish fnol depots (and I only mention this as an 
 cxami)le of the way in which our nders over there treat this grave 
 question), said : ' Oh, they have fuel enough to burn bonfires in 
 honour of the release of Mr. Davitt.' Because a few dried, or half- 
 dried, fiuzc bushes were lighted on the Irish hills in honour of the 
 release of Davitt, this paltry excuse is put forward, gravely put 
 forward, by the responsible Minister of the Crown. 
 
 " (A voice exclaimed : ' Three cheers for Davitt.' Great cheer- 
 ing and tinnult followed.) But if we examine the further action 
 of the Government, we find it continually marked by the same cold 
 neglect and indifTerence. The Government desired to drive the 
 people of Ireland upon the Irish poor-law system, and they have 
 replied in answer to every a])pcal that they cnnnot interfere, and 
 that the ordinary action of the poor law is sufficient to meet the 
 emergency. Now it was proved in the years gone by, and it has 
 been proved fj-equently since, that the Irish tenant will die in the 
 ditch rather than enter the poorhouse — (applause) — and he is right. 
 (Applause.) The Irish poor-law system is the most ingenious 
 system of all those Ave received from England for the purpose of 
 slowly torturing our country to death. The ties of family are 
 l)roken up. The father is separated from his children, children 
 from their mother, the wife from her husl^and, and tlie wretched 
 inmates of the Avorkhouse from the day they enter are consigned 
 to what is for many of them a living grave. 'All who enter here 
 abandon hope,' might appi'oprintely be Avritten on the portals of 
 every workhouse in Ireland. Now, if in 1846, before the Irish 
 famine had commenced, the question could have been brought 
 before the American people as it is being brought to-day, Avhether 
 by one side or the other, or by both, that famine would have been 
 impossil)le, for the Government would have been shamed into 
 stojtping it. But Avhat ha|)pened ? I do not Avish to excite your 
 l)assions by reference to the past. You knoAv the past perfectly 
 
458 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Parnell's well. The history of the past is written in letters that Avill never 
 Ts79 80 ^^ erased from the Irish mind. (Cries of 'Never, never!' A 
 voice: 'Hardly ever.') But we have sufficient evidence in the 
 present for our purpose. It is now admitted on all hands that 
 distress is imminent, and the discussion of this question will 
 undoubtedly force the British Government to take suitable action. 
 Americans will come forward, as they have always come forward, 
 and be the first to help our people nobly and generously. They 
 must not forget the gi'eat value and benefit that is to be derived 
 from this question, and its open discussion in the face of the nations 
 of the world. (Applause.) But if, as we have been so frequently 
 advised, we had allowed the present moment to go by without any 
 attempt at organisation, we should have had a repetition of 18-i7 
 and its terrible scenes. Government neglect would have been the 
 same as ever ; the hearts of our people would have broken by 
 physical suffering and distress. They would have become dis- 
 organised and exasperated. Evictions in multitude would have 
 taken place. Retaliatory action would have been adopted by the 
 exasperated masses. We should have had another ineftectual 
 rebellion. The wild justice of revenge would have been invoked 
 against the Irish landlords. What a contrast is there. Instead of 
 chaos and disorganisation, the Irish people now present a remark- 
 able spectacle. Firm, confident, and self-reliant, with death literally 
 staring them in the face, they stand within the limit of the law 
 and the Constitution, and the first to set them the exam})le of 
 breaking the law and outstepping the Constitution has been the 
 very Government of the country which has SAVorn to do right. 
 (Hisses.) The attention of the whole civilised world is centred 
 upon Ireland, and very shortly the merits of our question will be 
 known in all parts. 
 
 " We have saved the lives of the landlords, and we have saved 
 the lives of the people. (Applause.) Now I do not Avish — in fact 
 it would be impossible for me, in the presence of this immense 
 midtitude — to go into many details. I can only speak very 
 generally in reference to many branches of this great question ; 
 but if asked, 'What do you propose?' I may state generally that 
 we propose to make the occupiers of the soil its owners. (Great 
 applause.) We wish to do this with as little injury to what may 
 be considered to be vested interests as possible. No physical 
 violence, no constitutional action is contemplated, but in my judg- 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 459 
 
 nioiit what — (Two words lost in tiniiult). As I have repeatedly r-arneH's 
 R;iid, ATiicriran ])ul)lic opinion is one of our greatest weapons, and ig^g'go 
 the landlords themselves, by invoking that pnhlic opinion, have 
 shown the very high value that they ])lace ujion it. I feel that 
 this is a very grent compliment to you that the proud British 
 aristocracy should humhle itself and appear as su})pliants before 
 this great demociacy. (Cheers and applause.) And they have 
 put forwaid a gontJemaii — Mr. Kavanagh — (hisses) — a, man of 
 signid aliility, fo ph^ad their cause, aiid I will do him justice to 
 say tliat he has l)oen the very best advocate that the circumstances 
 adnn'tted. (A voice: 'Where's his legs?' laughter.) Well, never 
 mind his legs, or his arms, he has got a very good head. And this 
 genth'man has advanced a variety of objections to our plans. He 
 has told us that the system of ownershi}) will entail subdivision 
 and sul)detting, and he has pointed to the old history of Ii-eland 
 before the famine, when subdivision and subletting did undoubtedly 
 exist to a very great and evil extent, as a proof of the justice of 
 this assertion. IJut the circumstances, the condition of allairs that 
 Ave now seek to establish, is very different from that which obtained 
 before the famine. Before the famine the system of renting of 
 land was in force, and that system of renting necessitated sub- 
 division and subletting. But we contemplate to replace that 
 system liy one of sale. AVe desire to make land free, so that 
 everybody who has money to buy it may buy as much as he needs 
 of it. Under the system of renting it is impossible to sell. The 
 diiru'ulty of proving a title is so great under the jn'esent laws that, 
 in tlie case of small holdings, the cost of jiroving the title exceeds 
 very frefjuentl}^ tlie purchase value of the holding itself. Then, as 
 now, tlie laws of entail and settlement were in full force. 
 
 " We desire to a])olish the laws of entail atid settlement — 
 (applause) — which prevents the natural crumbling away of pro- 
 jierties that Avise nature has ordained in order to pi-event the 
 l)roperty of the world from passing into a few hands. (Applause.) 
 Local registration of land tithes, such as you have in tin's country, 
 should also follow, so as to make it as easy to sell a bit of land as 
 it is to sell a haystack or a bale of cotton. (Applause.) 
 
 " Siilidivision is also pi'oduced liy the system of letting, but I 
 contend that no injurious subdivision Avould take place if we had 
 a free system of sale of land existing in Ireland. I believe that 
 under such a system the size of the farms Avould be regulated by 
 
1879-80. 
 
 46o THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Parnell's natural causes ; that a man would not care to huy a farm wliicli 
 i87q'sfi "^^^s ^0^ small for profitable cultivation, and in that Avay the size 
 of Irish farms Avould by natural causes gradually become suited to 
 the markets, the method of cultivation, and the crops grown. 
 Then we are also told by Mr. Kavanagh of the example of a 
 proprietor who leased in ])erpetuity their farms to fifty tenants, 
 with the result that they passed into the hands of middlemen. 
 The same reasons that I have just explained induced that action 
 also. If you sell an estate in Ireland and sell the farms of the 
 tenants, if you have the laws of entail and settlement as they no^v^ 
 are, if you render it impossible for a man to sell a small bit of 
 land, save at a cost which exceeds the purchase i)rice of it, then in 
 the course of a generation or two you would undoubtedly have 
 those farms back in the hands of middlemen or of landlords. AVe, 
 on the contrary, desire to arrange the conditions so that they shall 
 be suited to the great change that we contemplate, and we can 
 point to the example of other countries, of France, and of Belgium, 
 where land is limited as it is in Ireland, for the best example of 
 the truth of our reasoning, and of the explanation that we lay 
 before you. Well, those gentlemen have proceeded to make a 
 certain statement, or rather misstatement, of a rather barefaced 
 character. (Hisses.) Now, it is a common saying in legal circles 
 over in Ireland, ' If you have a Ijad case, abuse the jilaintift's 
 attorney.' And so, I suppose, Mr. Kavanagh thinks the best 
 thing he can do is to abuse us, since he knows that liis case is 
 hopeless. We do not intend to follow his bad example in this 
 respect. We intend to treat him with the utmost courtesy and 
 consideration, and we hope, if possible, to induce him to come 
 before you again in order to give us opportunities of refuting him 
 again. He tells us that we propose to apply money raised in 
 America to buying out the landlords. He need not be in the 
 slightest degree uneasy, for not one cent of your money Avill ever 
 go into his pockets. (Ai)i)lause.) And then he goes on to say 
 that none of it will go to the relief of distress, and that we proi)ose 
 to organise an armed rebellion Avith it. (Cheers.) Well, I have 
 no doubt that many of my fellow-countrymen in this country would 
 like to organise an armed rebellion. (Great cheering.) But I 
 regret to disappoint them also — (applause) — because I nuist 
 in truth and honesty tell you that, however unpopular such a 
 statement may be, not one cent of the money contributed and 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 461 
 
 liandcd to us will go toward organising an armed rebellion in rameH's 
 Ireland. (Applause.) Well, then he goes on to say that a large yo^g'oo 
 majority of the land is ' let at a fair value,' and he cites himself 
 and his own estate as an example of the fact. I told you just now 
 that I did not intend to abuse Mr. Kavanagh, and I am boiuid to 
 admit that during the high prices of the last fcAV years his estate 
 Avas let at a fair value, although I regret to say that he, like some 
 other Irish landlords, has refused to grant the reasonable reduction 
 of rent which has become necessary owing to the extraordinary 
 fall in prices and American competition. But the fact that Mr. 
 Kavanagh's land was rented at a fair value, during the last few 
 years, M'ill not excuse the many rack-renting Irish landlords who 
 have taken the last poiuul of llesli and the last drop of blood. We 
 know too well that the majority of Irish land is high rented, and 
 that a very large proportion of it is rack-rented ; and until Mr. 
 Kavanagh proves by statistics that this is not the case, he cannot 
 expect to be believed in supporting the negative on such evidence. 
 Well, thcTi he says that rents are not made in respect to improve- 
 nu'iits made by tenants. Now I shnll put one landlord against 
 another. In refuting this I shall choose the estate of a large 
 al)scntce landlord, a class who, as a rule, do not rack-rent their 
 lands, and I shall choose the testimony of a man of Mr. Kavanagh's 
 own rank and proclivities, an extensive land agent in Ireland, Mr. 
 •Stuart Trench, speaking of the Barony of Farran. I wish you to 
 recollect, gentlemen, the supposition is that land is raised in resj)ect 
 to the tenant's improvement. Speaking, in his Realities of Irish 
 Life, at page G8, of the Barony of Farran, in the county of 
 Monaghan, over Avhich he was their agent, Mr. Trench tells us 
 that in the year 1606 this Avhole barony was rented for the yearly 
 sum of .£250. 'What do you sui>pose is the rental of the barony 
 to-day V The rental of that barony to-day is something like 
 £80,000, and the added value of £250 to £80,000 is the work of 
 the tenants. Not anything that the landlord has done has added 
 one })en)iy in value to this ])roperty. He hath toiled not, neither 
 hath ho Ri)un, and is noAV in receipt of £90,000 out of a property 
 which, in the 250 years, has been raised hy the exertions of these 
 poor people from £250 to £80,000. Mr. Trench admits that this 
 Avas done by the exertions of the tenants, and not those of the 
 landlords, for he says at page 69, 'It Avas during this period that 
 the native inhabitants, few, or even some of Avhom, Avere even dis- 
 
462 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 Parnell's placed by the aristocratic owners of the soil, increased and nndti- 
 isyg'so 1^^^®^ ^^ ^ Si'®'^^ extent, and that the waste and wild lands \vere 
 fenced and enclosed, and ultimately converted into cultivation to 
 meet the wants of this rapidly-increasing population, so that in 
 the year 1847, only 74 years after the estimated value of the year 
 1760, the rental of the estate was raised to upwards of £40,000, 
 while the inhabitants had increased, so that by the census of '41 
 the population amounted to upward of 44,000 soids.' Now, ladies 
 and gentlemen, this is the process that has gone on in every estate 
 in Ireland. The example I have chosen was under a better landlord 
 than the majority, and yet you see that during this period the 
 rent roll of this estate has been rolled up to this enormous amount, 
 entirely owing to the exertions of the tenants. I think I am 
 entitled to contend that I have proved by the mouth of ]\Ir. Stuart 
 Trench that Mr. Kavanagh's assertion that rents are not raised by 
 respect to improvements by tenants is false and utterly groundless. 
 Now, he tells us also that capricious evictions have not taken place. 
 Well, I say in reply to that, that your own knowledge of the 
 history of the Irish Land Question suH'ered in your own person, 
 experienced by yourselves, is a sufficient refutation of such a state- 
 ment. (Applause.) I have now come to a close of the few 
 observations, I am afraid rather lengthy ones, that I venture to 
 make to you to-night. (Cries of 'Go on.') There are others to 
 speak. My honourable friend, Mr. Dillon — (great ap])lause) — son 
 of the late J. B. Dillon, member for the county of Ti])perar3^, A\dio 
 found in '48 a congenial home in this country during the few years 
 that he was under the ban of British law as a ])roscribed felon, 
 would also like to say a few words on this important question. 
 I can only, in conclusion, express my conviction that the time has 
 come when victory is about to crown the efforts of the Irish people 
 in their struggle for land. (Applause.) 
 
 "The handwriting has appeared upon the wall, and though vain 
 attemi)ts may be made from time to time to mistlirect public ()[)iniou, 
 to bolster u}) an expiring system, I confidently look forward to the 
 time when the tiller of the soil in Ireland may, as in other free 
 countries, reap the benefit of his exertions — (ajjplause) — and hand 
 that result down to his chihlren ; and when, instead of proscribing 
 labour, instead of offering every inducement to the tiller of the land 
 to allow it to remain idle and barren, the great exertion which our 
 people have shown themselves always ready to make when they arc 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONhECTION 463 
 
 working for themselves, and not as slaves, may be spent upon Irish Parnell's 
 
 land : and then I believe that one ereat step toward the freedom of }'-*'„ 
 . \ 18/9-80. 
 
 Ireland will have been made — (applause) — that we shall have put a 
 
 nail into the coffin of the system of P^nglish misrule in Ireland — - 
 
 (a})])lanse) — -removed one great imjiediment to the union of all classes 
 
 and religions there — (great cheers)— and that we shall have the 
 
 wish of every Irish patriot in all ages realised, that the orange and 
 
 green may be united — (deafcm'ng cheers, continuing for some 
 
 moments) — the Protestant and the Catholic enabled to work together 
 
 for the good of their country — (applause) — and no cause may exist 
 
 to ])revent any class of our countrymen from doing their duty by 
 
 the land that has given them l)irth." 
 
 ]My Lords, the other two speeches to which I wouhl 
 wish to make reference are those that I have mentioned, 
 but I will defer any reference to them until Mr, Parnell 
 is himself in the box. 
 
 IMy Lords, I now propose to follow the story, 
 bcL^innino; with the foundation of the League in America, 
 which took place upon the eve of the departure of Mr. 
 rarnell. For the purpose of that foimdntion he sent, or 
 caused to be sent, telegrams of invitation to a large 
 nund)er of representative men in America, including all 
 sliades and divisions, as far as he knew them, of American 
 opinion, advanced and conservative. Amongst others 
 he sent one to J\L\ Patrick Ford. Wx. Patrick Ford was 
 not at the meeting. Mr. Parnell called upon him ; did 
 not see him, and I Itelieve never has seen him — never 
 has met him. He then left for England, and the League Foundation 
 was founded, and had its constitution just as the Irish p"itution of 
 League had. I will now read to your Lordships that ^"J,^"*^" 
 constitution. \^^^^. 
 
 "TO THE IRISH RACE IN AIVIERICA 
 
 "Address of the Council of the Irish National Land and 
 Industrial League, U.S.A. 
 
 "On behalf of a. famine-stricken country, and in the interests of 
 
464 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Paruell's an Irish movement wliich aims at removing the cause of a peoi)le's 
 
 y.'-'i'n. periodic starvation, we hej^ to address the men of Irish lilood and 
 18/9-80. * ' 1-1 1 IT • 1 L. 
 
 the people of generous sympathies throughout tlie United Mates. 
 
 Our appeal is not for charity. In conjunction Avith the Land 
 
 League in Ireland we desire that our kindred in the parent land 
 
 should henceforth he free from the humiliation of a beggar's position 
 
 among nations, and that the liberal charity of this and other civilised 
 
 countries should be taxed no more in their behalf. 
 
 " Coincident Avith the famine which has reduced nearly a million 
 of our })eople to the necessity of living during the past six months 
 upon charity from the outside Avorld, and Avith the alarming exodus 
 of Ireland's Avorkers, Avhich is once more draining her of the blood 
 and sineAV of the country, a haul movement has sprung from the 
 people themselves, that has for its object their emancipation from 
 famine and misery, by the overthrow of the system of land Iuavs 
 Avhich has proved itself the parent and conservator of both. This 
 movement, through the intense earnestness manifested by the 
 agricultural classes in hundreds of great popular demonstrations — 
 by the orderly determination Avith Avhich they have asserted their 
 right to a better and more elevated social condition, and through 
 the able advocacy of Messrs. Parnell and Dillon, envoys of the 
 Land League to the United States, has arrested the attention of 
 the civilised world and avou a recognition of its reasonable and 
 just demands from the public sentiment of every enlightened 
 community. 
 
 "The National Land League of Ireland has been organised for 
 the piu^pose of guiding this movement to success, and in order that 
 this purpose may be achieved through means Avhich Avill appeal alike 
 to the justice and common sense of onlooking peoples, the folloAving 
 statement of ol)jects and plans, particulars of aid reijuired, and 
 details of its proposed application, is |)laced before the public to 
 shoAv for what its moral support is solicited, and hoAv the kindred 
 race in this country can lend its powerful aid in the Avork, and knoAV 
 hoAv that assistance is to be utilised in its accomplishment : — 
 
 "Objects of the League 
 
 "The National Land League of Irelantl Avas formed for the 
 following objects : — 
 
 " First. To put an end to Rack-renting, Eviction, and Landlord 
 oppression. 
 
XIX THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 465 
 
 ^^ Second. To effect such a radical change in the Land System of rariiell's 
 Ireland as will ])ut it in the power of every Irish farmer to become ig-q'co 
 the owner, on fair terms, of the land he tills. 
 
 " The Means Proposed to Effect these Objects are : 
 
 "(1) Organisation amongst the peo})le and tenant farmers for 
 })ur])oses of self-defence, and inculcating the absolute necessity of 
 their refusing to take any farm from which another maybe evicted, 
 or from purchasing any cattle or goods which may be seized on for 
 the iu)n-])aymcnt of impossible rent. 
 
 "(2) The cultivation of public opinion by persistent exposure in 
 the press, and by pul)lic meetings, of the monstrous injustice of the 
 present system, and of its ruinous results. 
 
 " (3) A resolute demnTid for the reduction of the excessive rents 
 which have brouglit the Irish peoi)le to a state of stnrvation. 
 
 " (4) Temperate but firm resistance to oppression and injustice. 
 
 " How THE Land League exreiits its Supporters in America 
 to aid it in this Work 
 
 " Irishmen in America can give most effectual aid : — 
 
 " First. — By enlightening American ])ul)lic ojiinion as to the 
 working of the landlord system, and by exposing through the 
 columns of the American jiress the o])pressions and outrages which 
 iire jxac'tiscd on the tenant fnrmcrs of Ireland." 
 
 " Sccn))(/. — I>y the immense moral influence which theii- su])})ort 
 exerts on the ])cople at home, cncournging them to be steadfast in 
 the struggle, and not to give way to despair. 
 
 " TJiird. — By contributing sufficient means to enable the League 
 to cairy 011 the movement in Ireland on such a scale as is necessary 
 to insure success. 
 
 "PURPOSP;S FOR WHICH ASSISTANCE IS ASKED FROM AMERICA 
 
 " Up to the present, through want of money, the League has 
 been obliged to confine its operations chiefly to a few counties. 
 The purposes for which funds are needed are : — 
 
 "(1st) To enable the League to spread its organisation through- 
 out the thirty-two counties of Ireland. 
 
 " (2d) Pending the abolition of landlordism, to aid local branches 
 of the Land League to defend in the courts such farmers as may be 
 
 2 H 
 
466 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 Parnell's served with processes of ejectment, and thus enable them to obstruct 
 18'9'80 ^'^^^ landlords as avail themselves of the poverty of the tenantry 
 and the machinery of the law to exterminate the victims of the 
 existing system. 
 
 " (3d) To enable the League to afford protection to those who 
 are unjustly evicted. Already the League has been ol>liged to 
 undertake the support of the families of the men who were recently 
 sentenced to imprisonment for resisting eviction in one of the famine 
 districts, and it is now supporting evicted families. 
 
 " (4th) To oppose the sup})orters of landlordism whenever 
 and wherever they endeavour to obtain any representative position 
 in Ireland which would be the means of aiding them in prolonging 
 the existence of the present land laws, and perpetuating the social 
 degradation and misery of our people. 
 
 " As an auxiliary to the Land League of L-eland in the Avork it 
 has undertaken to accomplish, the Irish National Land and Industiial 
 League of the United States has been organised upon an a[)[)c;d 
 from the })arent body. Its ol)jects are to render moral and material 
 assistance to the land movement in Ireland. In the conviction that 
 the primary purpose of that movement can be furthered, and the 
 best interests of Ireland protected and advanced by an equal 
 solicitude for manufacturing, mining, fishery, and commercial 
 industries, now, and for centuries past, })rostrated by delibeiate and 
 selfishly hostile English legislation, we claim it to Ite a duty 
 devolving upon all earnest Irish reformers to demand foi- Ireland 
 the right to regulate and protect the various interests which build 
 up the prosperity of an industrious people u})on the foundation of 
 their country's develo})ed resources. 
 
 " We have therefore placed this addenda to the platfoi lu of the 
 Land League of Ireland, and upon this progrannne for the social 
 and industrial advancement of an oi)pressed and poverty-stricken 
 l)eople we rest oiu* claim to solicit the good wishes of the American 
 people, and to ask for the earnest and organised co-operation of the 
 Irish race in this country. No movement for political or social 
 welfare has been initiated in Ireland for the past fifty years, Avhich 
 failed to obtain the sympathy and sui)port of her exiled children 
 here. The chances of success were never calculated in order to 
 regulate the measure of assistance to be given. A prompt and 
 generous help was the answer to every a]){)eal from the Motherland, 
 no matter what party stretched forth its hand across the Atlantic, 
 
THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 467 
 
 or whnt enterprise aroused the national spirit of a banished people. Parnell's 
 The cumulative results of uiu-elinquished struggles at home, and of yo7Q'Qn 
 sustained generosity abroad, has placed the land movement in 
 Ireland iti the determined and conspicuous position it now occupies 
 Ijcfore the world. It wars only against injustice and misery, and 
 aims at ac('omi)lishing oidy what is in accord with justice and 
 reason. Its ol)jccts are the upiooting by fail- and justifiable means 
 of the system of Irish landlordism which inflicts famine, sufFering, 
 and discontent u{)on a peo}>le that is entitled to a share of that 
 plenty, happiness, and contentment which every other civilised 
 coiuitry has won and now enjoys. It is a movement which 
 endiingcrs no national principle, nor asks its supporters to forego 
 any reasonable or legitimate aspiration for the future of their 
 country. It i-ecogniscs no sectarian distinctions, and refuses no 
 ])roirers of assistance from any class or any creed. It is a movement 
 of Irishmen for Ireland and humanity, which endeavours to unite 
 upon one platform men of all })arties and religions, to work out the 
 connnon g(K)(l of Ireland and its people. It asks from the Irish race 
 the matei iai liolp which is essential to success, and from the civilised 
 Avorld the sympathy and moral su})})ort which is necessary to secure it. 
 
 " (Signed) Jaaies J. M'Cafferty, Lowell, Mass., 
 
 Frcsidcnt, 
 Wii.iJAM PuRCELL, Kochester, N.Y., 
 
 J'lrr-Frrsidenf, 
 ItEV. Lawrence Walsh, AVaterbury, Conn., 
 
 IVcasitrer. 
 TiiADDEUR Flanagan, San Francisco, 
 Lawren(T. Har]\ion, Peoria, 111., 
 James Gibson, Patersou, N.J., 
 
 J. V. IvKDHY, Ilichmond, Va., (^Central 
 
 P. K. Walsti, Cleveland, Ohio, (Council. 
 
 M. E. Walsh, Providence, li.l., 
 Michakl Davitt, New York City and Dublin, 
 
 Central Secrdary.' 
 
 " Central Offices, University Building, 
 Washington S<piare, New York." 
 
 Those are the objects and the means proposed, and 
 a statement of the mode of assistance expected from 
 
468 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xix 
 
 ParubU's America, and tlie purposes for which that assistance was 
 
 Visit, ^ ^ 
 
 1879-80. asked, 
 
 I have more than once said that in laying down this 
 broad platform Mr. Parnell invited the co-operation 
 with him upon it of men of all classes of opinion, 
 advanced or retrograde, provided always that they were 
 willing to come in loyally to assist for the objects, and 
 within the means laid down in that programme. 
 
XX. 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION— LE CARON— 
 THE CONVENTIONS 
 
 Now, iny Lords, I invite your attention to the The con- 
 liistory of the conventions held in America, weaving 
 into tliat history the statements or reports which the 
 man Beach or Le Caron, from time to time forwarded 
 to tliis country. 1 might summarise the effect produced, 
 at least upon my mind l)y that history, and then ask 
 your Lordships, when 1 have gone through it, whether 
 I have untruly foreshadowed the story which that 
 history tells. First of all, it seems to me to show that 
 tliis Clan-na-Gael was not in its origin, what has l)een 
 designated in these libels, a murder-club, or an outrage- 
 club ; that it must have been little better than, what I 
 may call, the rump of the old Fenian party, reduced in 
 numbers, and reduced in influence, but showing un- 
 cpiestionably considciable activity ; that at a later 
 development of its history there is apparent the fact 
 that a section, but as it seems to me it must have been 
 a very insignificant section, even of the comparatively 
 insignificant body the Clan-na-Gael, who, in some of 
 the proceedings of that body, or perhaps more correctly 
 of individuals of that body, committed themselves to 
 the dastardly and inhuman policy of dynamite. 
 
 13ut it also shows (and this is the most interesting 
 
470 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 part of the story, and the part most germane to the 
 (juestions that we are discussing) secret attempts, per- 
 sisted in, on the part of representatives of the Chm-na- 
 Gael, to capture and control the open movement, and, 
 as I conceive, it also shows that those attempts al)- 
 solutely and entirely failed. 
 
 It further shows (and this 1 wish to emphasise) the 
 difficulties in which Mr. Parnell was placed (as 1 do not 
 think that any dispassionate person who has listened to 
 this story can doubt) in carrying out the desire, which 
 is everywhere manifested in everything he has done and 
 in everything he has said, to keep his movement a con- 
 stitutional and an open one ; and to my mind it is a 
 marvel, in view of the difficulties in whic-h he was un- 
 questionably placed, how absolutely free he has kept it 
 from the suspicion of taking part, in any sense, in an 
 alliance with any body, great or small, which properly 
 can be characterised as an unconstitutional or secret 
 organisation. I am afraid in what I shall say — 1 do 
 not know that I need be afraid, but, in what I shall say, 
 I certainly cannot avoid expressing my opinion that 
 Mr. Le Caron has not shown himself to be, l)y any 
 means, the important person which he seemed to con- 
 sider himself to be, for in the whole of this voluminous 
 correspondence, extending over years, which he has 
 carried on, I find no single instance of any forewarning 
 of the authorities here of any dynamitic enterprise or 
 attempt upon the part of any single person mentioned 
 — not as to Gallagher, not as to Mackay Lomasney, not 
 a single forewarning note of any attempted dastardly 
 enterprise of that class ; and, I confess, the impression 
 further borne in upon my mind, by the consideration of 
 these voluminous despatches to the V. C, is rather that a 
 number of that body appear to have spent no incon- 
 
XX LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 471 
 
 siderable time in writing very long, and what I must 
 rail rul)l)is]iy and supposed secret communications, and 
 tlien proceeding to tear tliem up. It seems to me as 
 if tliey were playing, to a great extent, at conspiracy, 
 rather than being engaged in any really active and 
 dangero us conspiracy. 
 
 My Lords, the first convention of the Land League New York 
 that was held was in New York in May 1880. Of that tio'C May 
 convention, Mr. Collins, member of Congress, and a ^^^*^" 
 lawyer of distinction, who was spoken of, I think, even 
 l)y ]3each or Le Caron as a man of eminent and un- 
 doubtedly respecta1_)le position, Avas the president. 
 On that convention the Irish World newspaper, of 
 which your Lordships have heard so much, threw 
 cold water. They considered it was quite too tame an 
 allair, a,nd used language with the repetition of which 
 1 will not at the moment trouble your Lordships. 
 As I liave at this part of the narration mentioned the 
 paper the World , I think it may be desirable if I at 
 once exhaust all I have to say in reference to that paper. 
 
 It began, as I have said, and as will be proved in The insh 
 the course of the evidence, witli throwing cold water 
 upon the convention of May 1880. After that date up 
 to the month of May 1882, it was wliat I may call, off 
 and on, friendly to the National League movement, and 
 to Mr. Parnell and his policy ; that is to say, during 
 that period occasionally there were adverse criticisms, 
 1)ut on the whole it was not, during that period, un- 
 friendly. During a brief period, and a very brief period, 
 it admitted to its columns very objectionable and con- 
 demnable communications, and I think it must be stated 
 also, in some of its leading articles, though it did not 
 actively advocate a policy of dynamite, certainly did 
 not I'cprchend, l)ut indirectly encouraged such a policy. 
 
 World. 
 
472 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 My Lords, following on the appearance of that policy 
 you will hear from Mr. Davitt, who has l)een and is 
 a friend of Mr. Patrick Ford, that he remonstrated 
 with him. I may even go to the length of say- 
 ing denounced Mr. Patri(;k Ford. But after IMay of 
 1882 the Irish World was actively hostile to Mr. 
 Parnell and to Mr. Parnell's movement. It is true that 
 it had opened its columns for contributions to the Relief 
 Fund, and that in its columns were acknowledged, and 
 through its agency remitted to Ireland, very large sums 
 for Irish purposes. But after May of 1882 not one 
 penny, as I am instructed, directly or indirectly, was 
 received through the Irish World. 
 
 Now, my Lords, in reference to the part it played 
 in collecting and in forwarding large sums of money, 
 I ask whether, in view of the large figures which have 
 been stated, it is not preposterous upon the face of it to 
 suggest, as has been suggested, that those were the con- 
 tributions of the U. B. or the V. C, or whatever is the 
 name by which they are to be called, a body numbering, 
 as I shall show your Lordships presently by reference to 
 one of their own circulars at a time to which I am 
 referring, only about 14,000, and at the highest estima- 
 tion at which they can be put by Beach or Le C*aron, 
 numbering from 20,000 to 30,000. No, my Lords, those 
 were the generous offerings of honest men and women, 
 honestly anxious to help their kinsfolk in distress in 
 Ireland, supplemented by the generous offerings of 
 American citizens of various nationalities, freely given, 
 honestly given, intended to be applied to what they 
 believed to be a good cause, and so applied. 
 
 My Lords, in February 1883 a discussion took place 
 in the House of Commons, in which Mr. Parnell openly 
 disavowed any responsibility for the Irish World, nay, 
 
XX LE CARON—TIIE CONVENTIONS 473 
 
 I tliink I may correctly say, denounced the Irish World. 
 The .speecli lias already heen read. I will merely ask 
 your Lordslii23s to note that fact. You will see it referred 
 to in the evidence already given. 
 
 Now one word more about the Irish World. I con- 
 fess I was afraid when so much importance appeared to 
 1)6 laid upon the columns of the Irish World, that when 
 they were finally admitted some fearful revelations 
 would be made. I was disappointed ; I was agreeably 
 disappointed. I had frequently seen the Irish World, 
 tliat is to say, it was forwarded to me as to other members 
 of Parliament. I had not read it, but I had frec^uently 
 heard it s23oken of. Now that the whole thing, the 
 worst that can be said about it, has been laid bare, is 
 there anything so atrocious in its columns ? I need not 
 say 1 am not going to excuse or say one word even in 
 palliation of what I may call the maniacal utterances of 
 " Transatlantic " (JMooney), or occasional articles in the 
 Irish World; l)ut I must say — I think it is simple jus- 
 tice to IMr. Patrick Ford to say — that his paper certainly 
 falls far short of deserving the reputation which un- 
 doubtedly those who represent the prosecution desired 
 to fix upon it. I am reminded, and, I believe quite 
 correctly reminded, that up to May 1882 there is 
 nothing in the paper which could by any fair con- 
 struction be taken to amount to the advocacy of 
 dynamite as a policy. 
 
 Your Tjordshi])S have heard a good deal about the 
 distril)ution of the Irish Worhl in Ireland, extending 
 over a limited period, and we have endeavoured to point 
 out, even upon the evidence as it stands, that that distri- 
 l)ution was mainly owing to the action of the gentleman 
 who certainly held an official position in connection with 
 the Land League in Ireland, but who also held the 
 
li 
 
 474 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 position, more important to be borne in mind in tlii^ 
 regard, namely the position of Dublin correspondent of 
 the Irisli World ; and I am instructed to state to your 
 Lordships that so far as regards the knowledge of every 
 one of the leaders of the movement, from Mr. Parnell to 
 his latest colleague, not one of them believes, not one of 
 them knows, of the expenditure of one single farthing in 
 the distribution of the Irish World in Ireland. 
 
 My Lords, the speech of Mr. Parnell in February 
 
 1883, to which I have adverted, but the reading of which 
 
 I will not again inflict upon your Lordships, is to l)e 
 
 found at page 3334. 
 
 Buffalo The next Land Leao-ue convention was at Buffiilo in 
 
 O 
 
 tiou^^jau. January of 188L It is not necessary that I should 
 trouble your Lordships, I think, at any great length with 
 reference to that convention, with the exception of 
 noticing one important point, because it bears upon and 
 explains a reference made by Mr. John Devoy in a letter 
 which was introduced (your Lordships may recollect it) 
 by Le Caron or Beach in his re-examination in this court. 
 The convener of that convention at Buffalo in January 
 1881 was the Rev. Lawrence Walsh, since dead, a man 
 held, as I am instructed, in universal esteem, not merely 
 by his own coreligionists, but by the people amongst 
 whom he lived. He was far from being an extreme man 
 even in political views. And the next person in impor- 
 tance at that convention was the Kev. T. J. Conaty, who 
 filled the office of chairman of the committee of resolu- 
 tions. 1 hope I have rightly described his position and 
 functions, but I think substantially it was that, these 
 apparently being the two most important functions at 
 gatherings of that kind. Mr. John Devoy, and men who 
 like him had much more advanced opinions in relation 
 to Irish politics, resented and complained of that Buffalo 
 
LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 475 
 
 convention, not because it condemned outrage, for it is 
 true and right to say outrage had never been tlie policy 
 of any section of the Fenian Ijody properly so called ; 
 men who called themselves Fenians undoubtedly as 
 iudividuals have offended against that rule, l)ut speaking 
 of tlic Fenian body as a body, no part of its history 
 shows that it was using crime or outrage as a means in 
 carrying out its policy. But the ground of complaint 
 ]\lr. Devoy made was that there was an attempt to give 
 too strongly a clerical character, a sectional character, to 
 that convention at Buffalo, and that there was what he 
 appeared to have regai"dcd as too much of the clerical 
 element introduced into this, which he regarded as a 
 mundane affair. 
 
 The resolutions at that convention were in every way, 
 at least, J submit in every way, unobjectionable. They 
 {isserted a right of agitation for the redress of Irish griev- 
 ances. They condemned the action of the Government 
 in the institution of the 8tate prosecution which was 
 at thai, time going on, or had just concluded a few days 
 bef(jre. They united with the National League in depre- 
 cating all forms of violence. They said that while they 
 honoured sanctity of contracts, that they could not hold 
 a contract sacred which leaves to the industrious tenant 
 farmer no alternative between a rack-rent and the road- 
 side, and they thanked the American Congress for the 
 sympathy that they had extended to Ireland. And 
 then they put forward this, which Wx. Patrick Ford did 
 not at all like : — 
 
 "That while the National League of America earnestly seeks 
 for co-operation, it has never recognised and does not recognise any 
 2)aper as an organ authorised to speak in its name." 
 
 1'liat was tlic fifth of the resolutions passed at that 
 convention. 
 
476 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 Davitt's Following this in the order of time (T merely 
 
 Feb. 1881. mention it here ; I have already referred to it l)ecause 
 of its effect upon what subsequently happened), in 
 February of 1881 Mr. Michael Davitt was arrested. 
 He was a man widely respected liotli in Ireland and 
 in America. His arrest had an ill effect, and it un- 
 doubtedly gave strength to the opponents of con- 
 stitutional agitation, and weakened the hands of those 
 in favour of that agitation. 
 Parneiiaiid And uow, at tliis pcHod, I coiiic to the alleged 
 interview of Mr. Parnell and Le Caron in May of 1881. 
 Up to this time Le Caron or Beach has made no sign. 
 None of these long-winded communications of the U. B. 
 or the V. C, so far at least as we know, had been 
 forwarded by him. He comes to England on, so far as 
 I understand, no definite mission, and he speaks of 
 having met Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. Parnell. Neither of 
 those gentlemen, apparently, had he ever seen l)efore, or 
 has he ever had any communication with since. Mr. 
 Parnell has endeavoured to recall, and has utterly failed 
 to recall, either while he was in the box or since, tlie 
 appearance or the name of Le Caron, He does not 
 desire to allege that he may not have had a conversation 
 with Beach or Le Caron. As a matter of fact, there 
 are few American visitors of any distinction, especially 
 of those who take an interest in politics, who do not 
 leave their cards upon Mr. Parnell at the House of 
 Commons, and frequently he sees them ; and it is per- 
 fectly possil)le that Mr. Parnell, addressing an Americum 
 visitor who was expressing an interest in American 
 politics, did complain to such a visitor that the Fenian 
 body in Ireland, or the remnant of the disorganised 
 Fenian body in Ireland, was opposing the open and 
 constitutional attempts at redress which Mr. Parnell and 
 
LE CA RON— THE CONVENTIONS 477 
 
 his jmrty were making; lie may have pointed out (he Pameiiami 
 lias fre()uently used such language) that their strength ^^ ^''''™"- 
 and force came from the sympathy and support which 
 tliey received from America, and that it was in the 
 hands of the American people to frustrate the attempts 
 which tlic Irish Republican Society was making in 
 Ireland to thwart and cross the path of constitutional 
 aoitation. 
 
 o 
 
 My Lords, Mr Parnell, looking to his whole career, 
 to every act of his life and every word that has issued 
 from his lips, — your Lordships will believe — truly and 
 most distinctly denies that he has ever said that he was 
 a revolutionist in the sense that physical force was the 
 only method by which the wrongs of Ireland could be 
 redressed ; that he ever said that they had the nucleus 
 of an ample revolutionary fund in the possession of 
 £100,000 ; that he ever gave Le Caroii or Beach any 
 mission to Uevoy, or to Ilynes, or Sullivan, or Carroll. 
 He never held such communication with any of these 
 persons, never received a communication from them. 
 It is suggested that Mr. Sullivan came from America, 
 but Mr. Parnell never saw Mr. Sullivan, never heard 
 that he came from America, never was told that he 
 came from America to Mr. Egan or to anyl)ody else upon 
 that mission, or upon any other mission. 
 
 My Lords, before I call attention to the letter of 
 Devoy, which is the only fragment of corroborative 
 evidence of Le Caron's statement, l)ut which is entirely 
 consistent with what I have just stated to your Lordships, 
 let me observe upon some remarkable facts. Did Beach 
 or Le Caron consider this an important communication ? 
 He says he did. Who can doubt that it was important ? 
 Here was a man about whose odious profession I will not 
 waste breatli in talking ; the state of society has some- 
 
478 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 Parneiiand tiling ftiulty ill it wlieii tliG employment of sucli men can 
 Le carou. ^^ excusecl, Ccin be defended, and can be necessary. 1 
 will not waste breath in talking of that. His life is a 
 livinQ- lie. He is wormino- himself into the confidence 
 of men (presumably honest, however mistaken in their 
 views) only to turn it into money and betray it. But 
 he says it was important. Most obviously it was im- 
 portant. 
 
 What was the attitude of the Government at 
 that time? Let me recall it. The attitude of the 
 Government towards the Irish leaders was one of a<'tive, 
 stern hostility. They would have been only too glad 
 (and no one knows "it better than Le Caron, or those 
 with whom he communicated) if they could have got 
 hold of any tangible fact which would have brought 
 home to Mr. Parnell or to any of his colleagues com- 
 plicity in enterprises beyond the law. Well, Le Garon 
 says lie took no note of this important communication. 
 He made no report in writing of this important com- 
 munication. Ah ! but there is more that marks the 
 fact that this man, upon a very slender l)asis, has been 
 building a lying fabric. Is it conceival)le, if that 
 communication had taken placte, that he (Le Garon) 
 would not have followed it up himself? Is it con- 
 ceivable that he would have gone from these shores 
 to France, and afterwards to America, and not written 
 (taking care that proof of his writing and his posting 
 was forthcoming) a single line of communication com- 
 mitting Mr. Parnell, in a way in which he could not deny 
 it, to the communication that he had made, and to the 
 suggestion that he should become a party to an alliance 
 with a policy of dynamite ? 
 
 I am stating, as I shall show your Lordships, much 
 more strongly than the evidence of Le Caron warrants 
 
XX LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 479 
 
 it, the effect of the conimunieation, even taking his own Pameiiaud 
 words ; l)ut I am taking it in the sense in which it has 
 been put forward, and in wliich Le Caron has attempted 
 to convey it to your Lordships, by insinuation, if not Iw 
 direct words. Yet we have the admission — the damning 
 admission — from Le Caron, that he never communicated 
 one line to Mr. Parnell or to Mr, O'Kelly, never sought 
 to di'aw tliem on into the meslies of tliis conspiracy, and 
 that, frcnn tlie day that lie saw them in May of 1881 
 until he appeared in that box, he had not only never 
 seen, but had held no comnumication with them. 
 
 Now, my Lords, what does he say ? First of all, let 
 me remind your Lordships that at this time it was not 
 suergested bv Le Caron that the V. C. ever was committed, 
 if indeed, as a body, it, at any time, ever was committed, 
 to a policy of dynamite. And the most that he has put 
 upon Mr. rarnell is this — I use his very words — that 
 the suggestion of Mr. Parnell was, that there was inter- 
 ference 1»y the sister organisation (sister to the Clan-na- 
 Gael) the I. R. B. in Ireland, with the constitutional 
 movement, and that he (Mr. Parnell) sought the oflices 
 of Le Caron to brino- the two into line. That is the 
 expression, and the only expression, or the strongest 
 expression, which he used. 
 
 ]\Iy Lords, he proceeds to Paris. What conversation 
 he had in Paris with ]\lr. Egan I know not ; but it is 
 fair to say that, as against Mr. Egan, who is not here, 
 the letter, which is the only scrap of corroboration of 
 this man's story, is not inconsistent with the view of the 
 comnninications of Mr. Egan having been of the same 
 kind and character as the possible communications to 
 which 1 have adverted on the part of Mr. Parnell. 
 
 I will now call your Lordships' attenti(Hi to that 
 letter. I ought to add, by the way, that having said 
 
48o THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 Parueii and that Ml'. Pariiell had no communication with Devoy, or 
 Hynes, or Dr. Carroll, or Mr. Sullivan in this matter, 
 and not only that, but never having heard, as 1 have 
 said, of any of these persons having visited the country, 
 he had no communication with Mr. Egan on the same 
 point, and he does not believe, so f^ir as his opinion is 
 concerned, that Mr. Egan ever committed himself to 
 such views. 
 
 " Dear Friknd — I am sorry I was oljliged to leave here for New 
 York last Saturday, and consequently did not get your letters till 
 my return last night. They would have heen sent on to me, hut 
 that I was expected to return. I am much obliged for the in- 
 formation you give me, and the interest you have taken in a matter 
 that affects us all so closely. I have not heard from H. yet." 
 [That is said to be Hynes.] 
 
 " Yesterday I received a short note from E. urging me strongly 
 to go over " [that is supposed to be Egan], " but I did not understand 
 for what purpose till I got your explanation. I would like to go 
 very much if I could spare the time, and if I thought my visit 
 would produce the effect antici})ated, but I ;im afraid it woukl not ; 
 I have no authority to speak for anybody, and no man could under- 
 take to speak for the Y. C. without its consent — which it Avould 
 take time to get. And none of us here could, even Av^ith the 
 sanction of the Y. C, guarantee anything for the individuals on the 
 other side who are hostile " [referring, of coiu'se, to the Fenian Ijody], 
 " but who, I feel certain, do not represent the opinion of the home 
 organisation." 
 
 That is to say, the opposition proceeds, according to 
 this letter, from individuals in the home organisation, 
 but the writer thinks they do not represent the opinion 
 of the organisation as such, and that the opposition is 
 the action merely of individuals. 
 
 "There can be no change there till there is a change of 
 persons, and that is sure to come in time. All I could do Avould 
 be to tell E. and P. on my own responsibility, what I believed 
 would satisfy our friends here, and make propositions that I 
 
LR CA RON— THE CONVENTIONS 
 
 might feel morally certain would be approved of. But I would Paniell and 
 not on any consideration have them pay my expenses. That would ^^^ Caron. 
 place me in a false position at once. I have asked advice, and if 
 certai)! friends of ours here think it the right thing to do, will start 
 next Wednesday, hut at present I don't thiidc I shall he so advised. 
 Thej^ seem to misunderstand our dissatisfaction here. It is not 
 with their action in Ireland, hut the action they allow their friends 
 to take in ihrir name here. There is little difference of opinion about 
 essential })oints, Ijut we cannot tolerate the kind of thing begun in 
 Euflalo." 
 
 That was the meeting convened by the Rev. Lawrence 
 Walsli, tlie second person, of importance there, Ijeing 
 the Rev. Mr. Conaty. Now, the first thing which is 
 noticea]:)le about this, and the first thing I would ask 
 in rehition to this letter, is this. Assumin^^, as I must 
 for the purpose of testing tliis letter, that Le Caron 
 liad comniunicated to Dcvoy tlie interview with Mr. 
 I'arnell in tlie sense in wliicli he desired to convey it 
 to your Loi'dships wlien giving his evidence, do you 
 tliink tliat tins is the letter of acknowledo-ment which 
 
 o 
 
 Devoy would have written upon such a communication ? 
 Your Lordsliips ol)serve tliat he says : — 
 
 " I am nuich ol)liged for the information " (and so on). " I 
 have not yet heard from Hynes. Yesterday I I'eceived a short note 
 from E. urging me strongly to go over, but I did not r.nderstand 
 for what purpose till I got your explanation." 
 
 And when he goes on to refer to the proposition 
 which is apparently supposed to be made to him, he 
 does not say it is a proposal coming from Mr. Parnell, 
 he does not say it is a proposal coming from anybody, 
 he leaves it perfectly open to doubt whether lie is refer- 
 ring to something contained in Egan's letter, giving 
 him the key to the letter which lie had received from 
 Le Charon. 
 
 Rut, my Lords, there are beyond this, and apart 
 
 2 I 
 
482 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 Fiinieii and from tliis, circumstaiices much stronger tliaii any argii- 
 Le caron. ^^^^^^ ^|^.^^ | ^>.^j^ addrcss to yoiu' T.ordsliips upon the ex 
 facie, consideration of this letter and upon the mei'e 
 comparison of that letter with the correspondence itself, 
 and that is the action which followed upon it. Accord- 
 ing to this man's case, according to this man's suggestion, 
 following this there was a visit from Mr. Sullivan to 
 Paris — a visit of which Mr. Parnell will tell you he never 
 heard and which he believes never took place ; of which 
 he heard neither from Mr. Sullivan, nor from \\y. Egan, 
 nor from any one else, and that, in tlie sense of Le C/aron's 
 evidence, he had no communication with any of the parties 
 named, or from Mr. Egan, in relation to such communica- 
 tion with the parties named. According to his statement, 
 the alliance which he suggests was consummated at a 
 secret convention of the Clan-na-Gael in August of 1 881. 
 Let this be noted, for its importance cannot l)e ex- 
 aggerated. That, he says, was the occasion upon which 
 the verbal negotiation, begun witli him in May 1881, 
 culminated, in the secret convention of August 1881, 
 in an alliance, and yet, my Lords, we have got his 
 long-winded report of that convention, and his report is 
 silent as to a single syllable in relation to this supposed 
 contemplated alliance. 
 
 There is no resolution upon the subject, and, still 
 more remarkable as a complete refutation of tlie falsity, 
 the exaggerated ftdsity, of the story, there is not even a 
 report to his confiding friend, Mr. Anderson, suggesting 
 that there was any such alliance contemplated or con- 
 sidered. That secret convention of August 1881 is 
 followed by another of these long-winded (I hope I 
 offend nobody by saying it ; I must say it, for it is true) 
 — these long-winded, supposed secret, circulars scattered 
 over the country through the medium of the post. This 
 
XX LE C A RON— THE CONVENTIONS 483 
 
 [U'cvious circular was issued in September 1881, and PariRiiand 
 is printed at page 2554. That circular in all conscience ^'"^ ^"'""" 
 is long- enough, goes into detail enough, but is utterly 
 and aJ)S()hiiely silent upon the one cardinal point which 
 your Lordships would expect to see prominent in it, if 
 there had been such an alliance, and if any attempt were 
 1)eiiig ni;ide to give cHect to it; because, bear in mind 
 tliis V. 0. l)()dy, comparatively insignificant in nund)ers, 
 was scattered over a great part of America. The con- 
 vention would not represent the whole body numerically. 
 It would only represent the heads of local sections of the 
 l)ody — I think the D's they were called, or captains. 
 Therefore, to convey and impress it upon the minds of 
 the members, if they were to use their intluence in the 
 direction of quieting Fenian opposition and bringing 
 ])ressure to bear upon friends at home, it would be 
 necessary that this alleged alliance should in some shape 
 or form 1)e communicated, so that those friends might 
 act upon the instructions or act upon the hint. 
 
 I therefore ask your Lordships to consider the 
 true weight to be given to the interview alleged to 
 be had ))y Lc (Jaron with Mr. Parnell in the spring 
 of 1881 in London, and I point out to your Lord- 
 ships that even the statement of I^e Caron falls short of 
 the suggestion which it was sought to found upon his 
 evidence, tliat Mr. Parnell had invited an alliance be- 
 tween the U. B. or V. 0. (whichever it is to be called) and 
 the home, opeji, constitutional organisation. I am 
 endeavouring to show that the account of Le Caron 
 himself, and still more the subsequent conduct which 
 he pursued, and the body, of which he was a meml)er, 
 pursued, is consistent with what may very possibly 
 have taken phice, not in a conference or interview of 
 tlirec-(|uarters of an hour, for Mr. Parnell is (juite sure 
 
486 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 to use, while at the same time doing nothing to forfeit the ie.si)ect 
 of the civilised Avorld, nor to alienate the friendshij) of those whose 
 friendshii) wo need for success, as well as for the u})holding of our 
 own consciences. We will not butcher the wives and children of 
 those ))y whose side we fought for liljerty, and who generously gave 
 to save us and ours from want when England intended by a repeti- 
 tion of her infamous '47 policy to turn a trivial failure of crops into 
 an artificial famine which woidd consign millions to i)au\)ers' 
 graves. The F. C. has no delicacy or sentimentality about how it 
 will strike the enemy, or when and where. But it would be false to 
 the trust imposed on it if it permitted the cause of a nation to l)e 
 bedraggled in the mire, and to become the companion of the 
 mere factious, freebooting, and butchering schemes which disgrace 
 the existence of peoples whom we might name. We mean war 
 upon our enemy. We mean that Avar to be unsparing and un- 
 ceasino;. We mean it to be effective. But Ave also mean to Avin 
 Avith liberty the respect of the civilised Avorld." 
 
 So your Lordships see two things from this circiihir, 
 first of all that there is no suggestion of the supposed 
 alliance, and next I think it strengthens the argument 
 which I yesterday addressed to your liordships, tliat, up 
 to this time at least, it could not l)e alleged even against 
 the Clan-na-Gael that they had made, as Le Caron or 
 Beach suggested they had made, the use of dynamite a 
 part of their policy. His statement was that it was at 
 this very convention that this was inaugurated as part of 
 their policy. 
 Chicago Now the ucxt Land League convention, to which I 
 
 tion, Dec. have to refer, was held in December 1881 at Chicago. 
 ^' Its proceedings must he referred to at some little length 
 in the course of the evidence. I have still so much 
 ground to traverse that I do not propose to trouble }'our 
 Lordships by reading those proceedings at length ; but 
 this is noticeable in regard to that convention. The call 
 for it, as it is named in the American accounts, was 
 signed by Patrick Ford, by General P. A. Collins, and 
 
XX LE CARON-THE CONVENTIONS 487 
 
 by John Boyle O'Reilly, as representing the American 
 section of the Land League, and by Mr. T. P. O'Connor, 
 ]\Ir. T. W. Jlealy, and tlie Rev. Eugene Sheeliy, as 
 rej)j'csenting the Lisli section of the Land League niovc- 
 incnt. 7\nd as regards each one of those six persons, 
 not one, according to the admission of Le Caron himself, 
 was a member of the U. B. or of the V. C. Patrick Ford, 
 althouoli he hn* a time made the grievious mistake of 
 admitting to his columns references to a dynamite policy, 
 it was for a short time only, as 1 said yesterday, and I 
 believe it is true, that he never can, at any time, be said 
 to have advocated the use of dynamite as a policy. It 
 stands admitted by Le Caron that he never was a mem- 
 ber of this, or, so far as I know, of any other secret 
 organisation whatever. He said in express terms that 
 (General Collins was not; Mr. John Boyle O'Reilly (I 
 shall liavc to refer youi- Lordships to some of his public 
 utterances presently) never was, and neither were, I need 
 not say, lAlr. T. P. "o'Connor, M.P., Mr. T. M. Ilealy, or 
 the Rev. Eugene Slicehy. I am speaking, of course, of 
 not having been members of or connected with this V. C. 
 
 Now, my Lords, preparatory to that convention, v. c. 
 there was a circular from the secret body. That circular ^^^^ iggj 
 again is important. It is the 21st of November 1881, 
 and your Lordships will find it at page 25G9. 
 
 "Dear Sni and Brothers — It is the desire of the executive 
 body that as many menil)crs of the V. C. as can possibly attend the 
 Irish National Convention nt Chicngo, 30th Noveml)er 1881, Avill 
 do so without entailing any expense on the organisation. 
 
 " You Avill, therefore, inake every cflbrt to get the members of the 
 V. C. elected as delegates from any Irish society that may have an 
 existence in your neighbourhood, whether it be as representatives 
 of the Land Lciigue club, the 0. A. II., or any other organisation. 
 The F. C. particularly desires your i)resenco as a delegate, if it is 
 [)ossililc foi- you to attend as such." 
 
488 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 So that your Lordships see, tlie V. 0. liaviug no riglit 
 to send representatives in that cliaracter, Ijeing a secret 
 organisation, working secretly, resort to tlie method of 
 trying to get the persons wlio are at once memljers of 
 the V. C, but who are also members either of the Land 
 League clubs or of some other open organisations which 
 has the right to send delegates, to use their machinery 
 in order to have representation, secret, unknown repre- 
 sentation, of this secret organisation. 
 
 My Lords, as to the convention itself I will remind 
 your Lordships of the state of things when it was held. 
 It was held, I have said, in Decend)er 1881. At that 
 time Mr, Forster's unhaj)py Coercion Act was in full 
 force. About one thousand men were in prison, includ- 
 ing the prominent leaders of the Irish people ; and 
 as your Lordships may be prepared to expect, tlie 
 speeches or addresses on that occasion were more or less 
 excited by reason of the circumstances of that time, 
 v.c. My Lords, what was the view of the V. C. after the 
 
 Circular, "^ . ^ ' , 
 
 Jan. 1882. couvcntion ? lliat again is shown in their secret circular 
 of January 1882, which your Lordships will find begin- 
 ing at page 25G2. I am not reading, of course your 
 Lordships will understand, all. It would be intermin- 
 able. These documents are of inordinate lenuth. 
 
 "Owing to the failure of many delegates wlio were V. C. 
 
 men. 
 
 That means Land Leao-ne deleo-ates, who, beino- Land 
 League delegates, are also members of the V. C. 
 
 " Owing to the failure of many delegates Avho were V. C. men 
 to report and register at the place designated, only 320 names were 
 obtained. It is generally believed that there were at least 80 moie 
 in attendance at that body. It will thus be seen that the V. C. 
 was able to send on very short notice a much larger representation 
 to the convention than did any other organisation, and it will also 
 
XX LE CA RON— THE CONVENTIONS 489 
 
 1)C seen that 1)y the secret concerted action of its members it was 
 al)Ie to send this representation chiefly from other organisations." 
 
 I pause here to ask, if even the persons at the head of 
 this movement were not able themselves to identify who 
 were the representatives of their body under the guise 
 of Land Leaguers at this convention, how were those 
 who took part in the convention to know? It then 
 proceeds : — 
 
 "The piesence of a hirgo body of men in accord and with un- 
 niistakal)h^ views was soon recognised by all the elements in the 
 coiivcnlion. 'riicso strange men obtained the temporary and per- 
 manent chairs of the convention, the secretaries 1)otli temporary 
 and ])ermanent, the control of the committee on rules, })crmanent 
 organisations, and resolutions. . . . Through the convention, how- 
 ever, we have secui-ed a larger audience, and the means of reaching 
 that audience without expense to the V. C" 
 
 This question of expense occurs very frequently in 
 these circulars. Though on power bent they had a 
 fruo-al mind. It ffoes on : — 
 
 o o 
 
 "A large innnbcr of the Y. 0. men favoured the formation of a 
 new pulilic organisation to supplant all the factions now in existence." 
 
 And then follow parenthetically rather important 
 words of Le Caron or Beach's own. They are these : — 
 
 "dust Avhat is on the carpet now, the success attending Chicago 
 malces the W C. think they can indirectly control all the organisa- 
 tions of the U.S." 
 
 That means the LTnited States your Lordships of 
 couiso understand. Tlien it proceeds : — 
 
 " It was hoped that the demand for the new organisation, urged 
 and disseminated among the delegates, would create such a public 
 opinion among the delegates in the convention as would compel the 
 leaders of rival factions to agree to surrender to tlie new body, as 
 they ag?-eed in tlie selection of a temporary chairman of the conven- 
 tion. In this, however, there was disappointment; one gentleman. 
 
49° 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 Washing- 
 ton Con- 
 vention, 
 April 1882. 
 
 at the head of 1000 organisations, gave notice that he would not 
 yieUl to the proposed now one." 
 
 And then the note (Collins) which is inserted by Beach 
 or Le Caron is important. That man who continued, 
 and still continues, in active sympathy in connection 
 with the Irish-American branch of the movement was 
 General P. A. Collins, to whom T^e Caron or Beach was 
 obliged to give an undoubtedly very high character. 
 
 "Another gentleman declared that though not the head of 
 nominal organisations, he collected more money than the other." 
 
 Again, Le Caron's note is "Patrick Ford": — 
 
 " Ford Avould not recognise the new organisation, and would 
 persist in having no intermediate correspondent l)etween him ami 
 the foreign treasurer. Thus, had our men forceil through tlie new 
 organisation, the result would have l)oen but the formation of 
 another body, not a union at all, and, in the eyes of the world, the 
 result of the great gathering would have l)een but the addition of 
 one more faction. The convention finally decided to create a 
 national committee of seven, to he. appointed by the chair." 
 
 Then it f>oes on ao-ain as to what, notwithstandino' 
 
 this dispute, they were to do : — 
 
 "Doubtless it can find means to teach our views, and to pave 
 the way for a period when such a public organisation can be formed 
 by common consent, and without the creation of illwill towards 
 the V. C, or the multiplication of factions in the eyes of the world." 
 
 This, my Lords, was at a time when there was sup- 
 posed to have been a completed contract of alliance. 
 
 The next Land League convention, to which I have 
 to refer, was held at Washington in April of 1882. 
 There was, as well as I recollect, no Lish representative 
 there. I will read the address delivered l)y this same 
 General Collins as President on that occasion. I have 
 heard before, but I had forgotten for the moment, these 
 proceedings were all reported in the American press at 
 
XX LE CARD N— THE CONVENTIONS 491 
 
 gueater or less leiigtli, but in addition to that there was 
 an otiicial shorthand reporter, and the full volume of all 
 the proceedings of these conventions can he referred to 
 and Avill l)e put in in the course of the evidence. General 
 Collins, after some prefatory remarks, spoke thus : — 
 
 " We are hci'e to take counsel of one another, frankly, oi)enly, 
 and solx'rly ; to choose new officers in place of those who have 
 liorne tlieir jiart ; to revicAv the i)ast and correct its mistakes ; to 
 consider oiu' lelations with existing bodies ; to make snch changes 
 as experience suggests in tlie structure of our organisation ; to 
 increase its efficiency and extend its scope ; hut first and last we 
 arc here to preserve and protect the Land League on its chosen 
 lines, and to ])lcdge oursehes anew and for ever to stand l)y Ireland 
 and her trusted leaders till the great battle is won. Ireland has 
 chosen her leaders. England sees it and puts them in gaol. More 
 eloquent tri1)utc to the wisdom of her choice could not be given. 
 Ireland has chosen her policy of action ; her voice loudly proclaimed 
 it till stilled by foix-c. I>ut that voice has found a mighty echo 
 here, where the greater Iicland is, and to those leaders and that 
 policy our fealty is due till Ireland changes both. As fast and as 
 far as the peo})le of Ireland go, we go — no faster, no further. 
 Those Avho brave evictions, persecution, ruin ; those who stand in 
 the shadow of the prison, or scaffold, are the judges of the means, 
 the time, and the work. We are followers, not leaders ; we are 
 now and for all time the willing, hearty auxiliaries of the Irish 
 })eo])le in every step they take, in every effort they })ut forth, to 
 rid themselves of landlord rolibery and English o])pression. If I 
 judge the Irish people right, they seek no vengeance, but justice 
 only. In the days of their power and their warlike front they 
 never sought to force their rule upon any nation, nor their worship 
 U})on any people. They ask now merely to be allowed to live and 
 toil, and ]>rosper in their own way, in the land that God gave their 
 fathers. r>y fraud, force, famine, torture, law, liy all means and 
 insti-uments known to men and devils, England has striven for ages 
 to kill the national spirit and exterminate the race. They stole 
 the land, and tried to starve the minds of the people. But mind 
 and spirit and race are Irish still, and the land shall be Irish also." 
 
 1 am reminded that I ought perhaps to read in that 
 
492 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 connection the two resolutions wliicli were passed. The 
 earlier resolutions it is not necessary to read ; I have 
 no objection to do so, but it would be merely adtling 
 to the length of my statement. They are expressive 
 of sympathy with the Irish movement, endorsing 
 the action of the Irish party, expressive of sympathy 
 with Mr. Parnell and his colleagues who were then in 
 prison, and so forth ; and then it proceeds : — 
 
 " We are proud of the Christian for])earaiice of the Iri^h people 
 under their dreadful exasperations ; and Avhile exhorting every 
 man in Ireland to continue to use his influence in preventing even 
 the least act of violence, we solemnly charge the British Government 
 with the responsibility of all crimes and outrages of an extraordinary 
 nature occurring since the imprisonment of the chosen leaders of an 
 indomitable and exasperated race. 
 
 "Resolved — That while we do not ask the release of any 
 citizen who has violated the just law of the land, we demand of the 
 proper authorities not as a favour, but as a right, the immediate 
 trial or unconditional release of American citizens confined without 
 accusation in foreign gaols." 
 
 That applies, amongst otliers, to Mr. Boyton, who, as 
 Le Caron or Beach told your I^ordships, claimed to be 
 an American citizen. 
 
 Now, my Lords, leaving that convention, whicli was 
 in April 1882, I pass on to the year 1883. But as 
 I have already told you, Mr, Michael Davitt had been 
 re-arrested in January 1883, because of a speech whicli 
 he had delivered at Navan about that time, and as to 
 which he was given the offer of release from imprison- 
 ment, provided he would undertake to make no more 
 speeches ; which he declined. There was forwarded 
 to him in Richmond a resolution passed l)y a branch of 
 the Land League Organisation in Scotland — Glasgow — 
 pressing upon him to accept that offer for his release, 
 and pressing upon him to go to the then intended con- 
 
XX DAVITT ON ''PHYSICAL FORCE'' 493 
 
 vcntioii contemplated to l)e held in April of the same 
 year 1 883. One of the branches made reference to, and 
 one reason given in the resolutions forwarded t(3 him, 
 was, that th(^re was fear that, in the exasperation which 
 had then taken })lace amongst a large section of the 
 Irish American supporters of the movement, an injudi- 
 cious and wrong and condcmnable policy of violence 
 might be advocated at that convention ; and Mr. Davitt 
 wrote a letter, which I think is a very important one 
 and which ^vas pulilished in the papers at the time. It 
 is dated the 25tli ^March 1883. I do not think I can 
 unduly exaggerate the importance of this letter in view 
 of the allegation — I hardly call it an allegation — in view 
 of the suggestion put forward that at this particular 
 time the party, of Avhich the two prominent leaders were 
 Mr. Parnell and Mr. ]\licliael Davitt, were in alliance 
 with the jiarty which was advocating and acting upon 
 a policy of dynamite. It is addressed to the same Mr. 
 Ferguson who, during the disorganisation of the Land 
 League in Dublin, had presided at several of the meet- 
 ings in Dul)lin, and was published in the (rlasgow 
 Herald : — 
 
 " Richmond Prison, 
 
 "25th Mairh 1883. 
 
 "Dear Mu. Ferguson — In reply to your letter of the 23cl, Davitt's 
 conveying tlie sense of the resolutions ])assed at the City Hall j*^^^^^^ ° 
 JMeetinc:, I i-o^ret I cannot see my way to the adoiition of the course Ferguson, 
 
 ,, . ■ . 1 "^ "^ Mar. 1883. 
 
 therein reconunciulcd. 
 
 " Wlicii principles are set up as guides in political action, it is 
 somewliat more serious a matter than you appear to think for me 
 to delilieratoly give up a right of Avhich no power on earth is justi- 
 fied in dei)riviTig me, without liaving ])rovcd me guilty liefore a, 
 legally constituted tril)unal of having made criminal abuse of such 
 right. Right of s})ecch is as much a natural, and therefore an in- 
 alieuMl)le right, as the gift of breathing or seeing; and it is as 
 impossible for me to voluntarily surrender any right given me by 
 
494 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 nature without their ]\Iajesties Edward, James, and Charles being 
 in any way consulted as to my title thereto (as it would be guilty 
 of any other act of political pusillanimity, the recollection of which 
 I should have to carry in my memory for ever), merely to escape a. 
 paltry penalty that will only inconvenience me four or live months 
 from the present." 
 
 My Lords, the allusion to " tlieir Majesties Edward, 
 James, and Charles," related to the hiet that very 
 ancient and, as was generally supposed, oljsolete Acts of 
 Parliament had been evoked for the punishment of Mr. 
 Davitt, in reference to the offence which he was sup- 
 posed to have committed. 
 
 " I recognise and fully appreciate the motives that urge yourself 
 and friends to request me to otter bail, and I am very sorry that 
 an insurmountable obstacle should bar the way between me and the 
 performance of so laudable a work as that which you indicate in 
 your letter. 
 
 "Knowing our people in America as intimately as I do, I can 
 assure you there need be no fear of any action on the })art of 
 the Philadelphia convention that will give any sanction of or 
 encouragement to the few men who noAV call themselves ' the dyna- 
 mite party.' The vast majority of our people in America are of 
 course naturalised citizens, and as such think and act politically 
 as democrats, in a great democracy, more than as Irishmen. They 
 have become trained in the idea of convention. They are accus- 
 tomed to bow to the decisions of magistrates, and give to the man- 
 date of ruling authority, thus expressed, a loyal acquiescence, which 
 for reasons unnecessary to explain, they Avere not in the habit of 
 doing while in Ireland. This change makes them more democratic, 
 Avithout lessening their desire to see us in Ireland contented and 
 prosperous ; and the inevitable change that takes place in their 
 opinions, as to how Ireland is to win these blessings, is determined 
 by the evidence which they see everywhere around them of the 
 great Republic's affairs being managed, its well respected and 
 popular liberty guaranteed, through the sole agency of the ballot box." 
 
 Then he comes to the matter more immediately in 
 hand : — 
 
XX DAVITT ON ''PHYSICAL FORCE'' 495 
 
 " The political training thus acquired must cause every rational 
 Irish-Americau citizen to see at once that political agitation hy 
 means of dynamite in England is war against democracy of England 
 — those Avho live in cities and towns that are to be operated upon by 
 explosives — ivnd not against England's govenunent, with Avhicli 
 alone our contest is to be decided. The oidy conceivable outcome 
 of such a policj^ if put in practice, would be the arming of public 
 opinion against us at all points, and the turning from a just and a 
 moi-al cause the sympnthy of every nation, to whose shores the tele- 
 grn})h would flash the news of women and children being slaughtered 
 in the luime of Ireland. 
 
 "When, therefore, j'ou hear of individuals in New York declar- 
 ing a dynnmitc crusade against England, ' as the best and only means 
 of freeing Ireland,' you can take it for granted that they represent 
 no influential section of Irish-American citizens, and can command 
 oidy the services of those rare mortals who Avill be induced to run 
 all the risk involved in such Avork, Avhile its instigators, apostles, 
 and generals remain in America to do fhcir share of the damage to 
 the British Empire through the columns of newspapers. 
 
 " It is true, and I regret it exceedingly, that Patrick Ford is 
 represented in late des|)atches as having gone in with the dynamite 
 party, and this acquisition, if really made, will lend to it a poAver 
 which it could never otherAvisc obtain. From ' Spreading the 
 Light' to educate, to advocating dynamite, Avhich must destroy the 
 movement of social reform, is an extraordinary change indeed, in 
 the opinions of a man avIio has been so strenuous a supporter of the 
 moral fo)-ce doctrine, and I can hardly believe that Patrick Ford has 
 altogether abandoned reason for Possa. Principles of reform, 
 intelligently and fearlessly propagated, are far more destructive to 
 ujijust or Avorn-out systems than dynamite, bombs Avhich only kill 
 individuals or knock doAvn buildings, but do no injury to oppressi\'e 
 institutions ; and that man must be politically blind Avho cannot 
 see that the firing of ideas of ameliorative social reform into the 
 bends of England's toiling millions, is infinitely more likely to hasten 
 the solution of our OAvn national and social jiroblems than Avill be 
 the blowing doAvn of houses and the killing of innocent persons 
 among these very millions. Any course of action on the part of 
 Irishmen that Avould be calculated to consolidate thirty millions of 
 l)Cople into a unit of deadly antagonism against every form of Irish 
 jiolitical movement — and perhaps of retaliation upon seven millions 
 
496 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 of oui' I'ace in Ireland and Great Britain — must be the proposition 
 of a madman. The dynamite theory is the very abnegation of 
 mind, the surrender of reason to rage, of judgment to 1>lind un- 
 thinking reckkissness, and can only be equalled in unconscious 
 imbecility by advocating . the substitution of gunpowder for coal to 
 hasten the process of generating steam." 
 
 Davitt's My Lords, I really must be excused for finishing this 
 
 Physical letter, although it is rather long : — 
 
 Forcti 
 
 " If, as is alleged in some interviews I have seen reported from 
 America, dynamite is now preached as an only remedy for our 
 political salvation, because the moral remedies of speech and open 
 combination of the last four years have not succeeded in fully accom- 
 plishing the programme of the Land League, then the argument is 
 as childish as the would-be amended plan of action is asinine in its 
 sheer stupidity. Systems that have had a growth of centuries, and 
 are still resting upon the physical force of an immense empire, could 
 not reasonably be expected to surrender to even the power of the 
 Land League in so brief a struggle ; and the importance which over- 
 . looks this fact, and proposes now the adoi)tion of totally opposite 
 media to that by which substantial progress has been made in a 
 comparatively short period of time, betrays that want of steady 
 undeviating perseverance on a slow but wimiing line of action that 
 has been so unfortunately characteristic of all past movements, 
 
 " If no other argument could be adduced against a jjolicy of 
 violence than that of the manifest injury which has resulted from 
 the outrages that have occurred from February 1881 to the 6th of 
 May 1882, here in Ireland, surely that should be more than sufficient 
 to show to the most obtuse understanding how disastrously it nuist 
 inevitably work to the very cause that is now pro[)osed to be servetl 
 by an extension of its application. I have maintained, on fifty 
 platforms in Great Britain and America, since my release fnuu Tort- 
 land, that to outrage, and outrage alone, Avas due the deieat and 
 partial collapse of the Land League, and the consequent escape of 
 landlordism — for a time — from the demoralising antagonism of a new 
 kind of organised opposition that would have soon compelled the 
 Irish landlords to surrender to the people. 
 
 "Mr. Forster has acknowledged this in language that should be 
 committed to memory by every Irishman who means to continue in 
 Irish politics. In his ferocious attack upon Mr. Parnell the ex- 
 
XX DAVITT ON ''PHYSICAL FORCE'' 497 
 
 Chief Secretary made use of these remarkable expressions : ' I 
 believe that if these terrible murders had not happened — that if 
 there had been no other immediate outbreak somewhat similar to 
 these (the rha?nix Park) murders — Ireland would have speedily 
 become almost ungovernable. The people of Ireland would have 
 thought that in fact the honourable member for Cork was governing 
 Ireland.' 
 
 " If, then, the result of violence in Ireland has been to cripple 
 the power of the Land League, and to place coercion in the ascen- 
 dant, what must be the logical outcome of a policy of violence in 
 England ? 
 
 " It could have but one consecpience, and one only — the com- 
 plete destruction of the national movement for a generation. Any 
 ;ict or scries of acts done in England in the name of Ireland, that 
 would cause the entire iiopulatiou to become solidaire with the 
 Coveriuucnt in retaliating politically for the wanton destruction of 
 iiniocent people, would do more towards withholding self-government 
 from us than a dozen of Coercion Acts like that now in force. 
 
 " Those who do not wish to see the movement of the past four 
 years completely ruined had better address a sim})le, but a very 
 pertinent question, to those who are now advocating the dynamite 
 policy, namely — Ey what authority does a handful of men in New 
 York arrogate to themselves the right of initiating such a policy, 
 l)resumably in the interest of the Irish race, Avhen ninety-nine out 
 of every one hundred of our people throughout the world are opposed 
 to the use of such an agency, upon ever}" ground, moral, religious, 
 national, expedient, and political 1 Surely seven millions of us 
 residing in Ireland and Great Britain are not going to stand this, 
 to see a movement ruined which has l)cen sanctioned by the entire 
 Celtic race, and the lives of our kindred in England jeoiiardised, 
 because a small group of men are growing tired of the struggle for 
 independence through reform, and are desirous of striking at Eng- 
 land ft)i' revenge. Those who fight only for revenge should be the 
 iniin'stcrs of their own })rinciples, and face the consequences of their 
 ap[)lica(ion, and not incite others to the doing of acts which the 
 instigators shrink from performing. Those in America who differ 
 from our mnilvs operandi in the work we are carrying on for the 
 country, have no shadow of a right to fling athwart the course of 
 our movement, now in deadly grips with the Government, an indc- 
 jicjulent line of action, which is as certain to paralyse all our cfTorts 
 
 2 K 
 
THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 for Ireland as it will be a ftiilure to cause any permanent injury to 
 England; and this, I predict, will be tiie opinion voiced by the 
 convention." 
 
 I will hand in the whole of the letter, but it is to 
 the same purpose, and to the same effect. 
 Parueiiaud Is it conceivable, my Lords, is not it the sheerest 
 Feb.Tssa. absurdity to suggest, or ask the court to believe, that 
 at the time of this very policy of opposition to the wild, 
 wicked scheme, suggested and adopted by the secret 
 organisation in America, is it not absurd to suggest that 
 at that time the party of which Mr. Parnell and Mr. 
 Davitt were leaders was in alliance with that very organi- 
 sation. Why, my Lords, contemporaneously with the 
 publication by Mr. Davitt of that very document, came 
 the speech (or almost contemporaneously) the speech of 
 Mr. Parnell, to which I have already more than once 
 referred — I mean the speech in the House of Commons 
 in February 1883, where he denounced Mr. Patrick Ford 
 and his dynamite policy. 
 phiiadd- My Lords, the Philadelphia convention, as I have 
 
 veutioil^,"' said, was the next convention ; this again was preceded 
 1S83. i^y ^ secret circular of the secret organisation. Your 
 Lordships will find it at page 2578. This is not un- 
 important. Le Caron or Beach is first asked l)y — I 
 think the Attorney-General, who is examining him : — 
 
 "Did you receive, prior to that convention, these instructions 
 in the early part of 1883 ; I see it is not dated, but it must have 
 been either the beginning of April or before April % " 
 
 The answer is "Yes." Then it is read : — 
 
 " Brothers, we iirge upon your immediate attention the necessity 
 of securing as full an attendance as possible at the convention at 
 Philadelphia in pursuance of the following call." 
 
 Then the call is set out signed by Mr. Patrick Egan, 
 
XX LE C A RON— THE CONVENTIONS 499 
 
 James Mooney, and Michael BolancI ; that is the call 
 for tlic Land League convention. I call your Lordships 
 attention to these words : — 
 
 " Tin's convention presents the first grand opportunity to secure 
 the union of all the elements of our race on this continent. Shall 
 the union so formed l)e upon a rational basis ? Shall it by its 
 cliaracter, its deliberations, and its results reflect credit upon our 
 cause and advance the interests of that cause 1 " 
 
 Then it proceeds : — 
 
 " We advise that you secure the co-operation of all societies to V. C. 
 which you belong. Thus we will have representation without am'/ 1883 
 expense. We have no power to authorise the payments of expenses 
 of delegates to the convention out of the revolutionary fund, but 
 we have no objection to any D. sending a delegate or delegates at 
 at the expense of the contingent fund. In many cases there are 
 reputable loyal members of the V. 0. who Avould be glad to go and 
 pay their own expenses ; all that class of brothers should bo of 
 coiu'so furnished with credentials ; all brothers in attendance should 
 report to Bro. James E. M'Dcrmott, S.G., 404, at 1128 South 9th 
 Street, Phila., immediately upon arrival," and so on, showing it is 
 still a secret movement. 
 
 Now, my Lords, it is curious how strangely iucon- The 
 sistent are the statements as to the time when this sup- as^t'oThe 
 posed alliance between the Fenian movement and the uAifl^jf^ce " 
 open movement is supposed to have taken place. The 
 time at wliicli it is supposed to have taken place, according 
 to the Attorney -General in his opening, dated from 
 1879, when Mr. Parnell went to America, because he 
 assured your Lordships, of course upon his instructions, 
 tliat unless Mr. Parnell had made the speech at Cin- 
 cinnati, unless he had thrown himself, so to speak, into 
 the arms of the remnant — for it was no more than the 
 remnant of the once powerful Fenian body — that he 
 could not have stirred one inch in America, and could 
 liavc made no way towards gaining tlie su[)port of 
 
500 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 the people. That was the Attorney - General's date. 
 Delaney dates the alliance from the meeting in the 
 Eotunda in Dublin in May 1880. Le Caron or Beach 
 dates the alliance from the secret convention of Auoust 
 1881. And now, my Lords, I have got to 1883 — April 
 — and there they are speaking of " the first opportunity 
 for union of these organisations." 
 Proceed- My Lords, I have now to make some reference to 
 
 PhfLv ' what took place at that convention, but the reference 
 PmS^ will not be Iouq-. The address of the president at tliat 
 tion, 1883. Convention is set out in the shorthand note, and I think 
 it begins at page 2581. I do not trouljle your Lord- 
 ships with reading that speech, because it is already in, 
 and you will refer to it. I understand it to be the 
 opening address of Mr. James Mooney, and I will con- 
 tent myself Avitli saying that there is nothing, so far 
 as I can see, in the least objectionable in that speech, 
 and the concluding sentence of it practically gives its 
 pith. It says : — 
 
 "In Charles StoAvart Parnell the Irish pooplc havo a hiadcr 
 whose place in history will be a proud one. England has ratified 
 their choice by calumny and hate. It is our desire to unite with 
 the League he has established in Ireland, that we may strengthen 
 and support him in the labours he has undertaken. Setting aside 
 our personal views, we must work under liis guidance in such a way 
 as to best support and least embarrass him. It is our hope to see 
 him win for Ireland Land Law Eeform, Local Government, Exten- 
 sion of the Franchise, development of industrial interests, and if 
 all these were won, the day would surely dawn the brighter for the 
 realisation of the hope that would spring up in every Irish heart, 
 that under Heaven's blessing he might still lead on to that best and 
 highest goal of national independence." 
 
 Then I have in relation to that meeting first to refer 
 to the address which has not been put in, an address, 
 my Lords, which followed in the month of May — the 
 
XX LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 501 
 
 meeting of the couventiou being in April. It is the 
 address of the Irish National League. This, my Lords, 
 has not been put in ; it will be put in in the course of 
 tlie evidence. It is an address from the executive 
 l)ody : — 
 
 " Unquestionably accepting tlio platform of the Irish National 
 Ijcaguo of Ireland, of "which Charles Stewart Parnell is President, 
 it solemnly organised the Irish National League of America, and 
 thus inaugurated the most compact, the most cohesive, and most 
 inspiring movement of the time for the promotion of an object at 
 once humane and political. "What object is the restoration of self- 
 government to a people Avhose poverty frequentlj' descending to 
 famine, and always on the verge of it, is not due to the soil, but 
 to the result of the blind viciousness of a hostile foreign power, 
 whicli annually draining out naturally created capital, maintains a 
 system of terror and lawlessness ruinous of peace and a fatal 
 ])arrier in the ways of industrial and social development," and 
 so on. 
 
 Then it concludes : — 
 
 " We earnestly appeal to men of our race, not members of ' 
 societies, to conscientiously consider the critical condition of their 
 kindred in Ireland at this time. The platform of the Irish National 
 Leiiguc is one ui^on which all reasonable men of Irish blood can 
 honestly stand together. Its method is one by which all can work 
 \ igorously and effectively together. Its objects are sanctioned by 
 the highest authority, and the experience of mankind demonstrates 
 what may l)e achieved by persistent, determined, and united effort." 
 
 One other observation as to this convention. There 
 were present at it, as suggested by the Attorney-General 
 in his opening, as active movers in it, Sheridan, 
 Boy ton, Rossa, and Byrne. My Lords, they were 
 spectators, not delegates ; they took no part in the 
 proceedings. O'Donovan Rossa was discredited in the 
 eyes of the whole of the public at the time, of all 
 sections and of all classes. These men w^ere present 
 merely as spectators, and not as actors. 
 
502 
 
 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 To that convention Mr. Parnell sent a telegram, 
 which will be found at page 2587. 
 
 " My presence at the opening of the most representative con- 
 vention of Irish- American opinion ever assembled being impossible, 
 owing to the necessity of my remaining here to oppose the 
 Criminal Code Bill, Avhich re-enacts permanently the worst pro- 
 visions of coercion, and which, if passed, will leave constitutional 
 movements at the mercy of the Government, I would ask you to 
 lay my views before the convention. I would respectfully advise 
 that your platform be so framed as to enable us to continue to 
 accept help from America, and at the same time avoid offering a 
 pretext to the British Government for entirely suppressing the 
 national movement in Ireland. In this Avay only can unity of 
 movement be preserved both in Ireland and America. I have 
 perfect confidence that by prudence, moderation, and firmness, the 
 cause of Ireland will continue to advance, and though persecution 
 rests heavily upon us at present, before many years have passed 
 we shall achieve these great objects for which through many 
 centuries our race has struggled." 
 
 There were some 1100 delegates at the convention, 
 and I am instructed Ly those who are from knowledge 
 entitled to speak, that the number of those who might 
 be said to belong to the extreme section, to the secret 
 movement, belonging to the V. C. in America, did not 
 exceed in number, at the very most, some thirty, to 
 forty or fifty. My Lords, at this time the Ivisli World 
 was in active hostility to the Land League, and it was 
 at this time, when in active hostility to the Land League, 
 that it opened the fund known by the name of the 
 " Martyrs' Fund," which was a fund in relation to the 
 support of families of persons who had taken part in 
 the tragedy of May 1882. That fund, it is rather im- 
 portant to note, started about the date 1 have given 
 to your Lordships, May or April, at a time that the 
 Irish World was in open hostility to the Land League 
 in Ireland. 
 
XX LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 503 
 
 My Lords, the next convention and tlie last but Boston 
 one, was held at Boston in August of 1884. Again we tio'i^ Aug. 
 have a preliminary secret circular, which your Lordships ^^^^' 
 will find at page 2609. 
 
 " We request as many brothers as possible to be elected dele 
 gates to the Boston convention of the League." 
 
 Therefore it is clear from each and all these, I do not 
 reiterate, that as a body they had no right to send 
 delegates at all, which of course, if they had been 
 in alliance with the organisation, they would have 
 had. 
 
 "All brothers of districts A., B., C, D., E., F., G., and P. will v.c;. 
 report through one brother from each State to brother James F. a"!" 1884 
 Gallagher, at Hotel Eliot, 18 Eliot Street, Boston, and all brothers 
 of Districts H., I., J., K., L., M., N., and 0. will report to brother 
 P. K. Walsh, at Hotel Le Grange, Tremont Street. Brothers 
 Gallagher and AValsh Avill notify brothers where the V. C. men Avill 
 meet. It attracts too much attention for all to go to one or two 
 places to report. The going of large numliers of men to a certain 
 room in an hotel arouses sus})icion, therefore let the V. C. delegates 
 from each State select a man Avho will report to the brothers above 
 named " 
 
 and so forth, showing that they were keeping as secret 
 as they could the fact that they were endeavouring, to 
 use Le Caron or Beach's expression, to " capture " the 
 League. My Lords, I see here the witness adds on 
 page 2610. 
 
 " The V. C. men are hereby instructed to vote down in the 
 League Convention every {)roposition to denounce physical force of 
 any kind." 
 
 That is given more connectedly in the covering letter 
 which he sent with that circular to Anderson. That 
 coveriug letter is at the bottom of page 2616. 
 
504 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION 
 
 ''7th August ISSL 
 "A new supreme council has been elected, and will meet in 
 Boston next week for the first time. I Avas around to League 
 officers " 
 
 it is printed here " officers," but I fancy it means offices — 
 
 " to secure credentials to secure round tickets for Boston at reduced 
 fares to-day, and Sullivan told me that we had a new S, C, and 
 that they would assume control at a meeting in B. next week. It 
 is going to be a difficult matter to find out Avho they all are. I 
 inquired if there were many charges, and he said yes. I infer from 
 what he said that he is a member of it. You may look for a 
 beautiful fight in Boston. The V. C. are pulling the Avires to con- 
 trol the convention and organisation the coming year, and it being 
 known by some means to be successful will not be so easy a task 
 as last year in Philadelphia under date of July 31st, the old F. C. 
 have issued a document touching upon the convention," and so on. 
 
 They bad not yet apparently succeeded. My Lords, 
 the resolutions at that convention were in no sense 
 dangerous nor marked by any great degree of ability 
 or of wisdom. There was certainly nothing objec- 
 tionable, and nothing dangerous in them ; they will 
 be put in in the course of the evidence of this case, 
 probably during the evidence of Mr. Thomas Sexton, 
 who attended and who spoke at that convention. 
 
 It was contemplated to hold a further convention, 
 the next convention, at Chicago, in January 188G, and 
 it was intended that Mr. Parnell, or hoped that Mr. 
 Parnell, would be able to attend that convention. 
 Again the V, C. are at work, and their secret circular 
 is to be found at page 2G32. It is dated the lOtli 
 V. c. November 1885, and begins by congratulating the 
 Nov!^i885. ^'^embers on the vigour and earnestness which they 
 have shown. It goes on to say : — 
 
 "We earnestly urge you to see to it at once that all funds 
 subscribed are collected and forwarded to the Eev. Chas. O'lJeillj', 
 
XX LE CA RON— THE CONVENTIONS 505 
 
 D.])., St. ratrick's Church, Detroit, Mich., so that the reverend 
 trcasni'cr of tlic League in America can remit home at the time tliey 
 stand most in need of it. It is directed that in all cases the money 
 may bo sent through Dr. O'Reilly. The next public duty devolving 
 uj)on us will be the reorganisation of branches of the League, and 
 the election of delegates to its national convention, to be held in 
 Chicago on the 20tli January next, at which Mr. Parnell will be 
 jirescnt. The convention therefore must be made a great success. 
 Jt would be perilous to the cause to have any failure in connection 
 with the visit of the leader of the public movement." 
 
 And later on : — 
 
 " It may be pro[)er here to intimate to you that if our firm has 
 not done much advertising of late, it is because of a fixed and 
 understood policy, and it is not mere accident. We have deemed 
 it wise, in view of the present attitude of the public affairs, to keep 
 quiet and make as little noise as possible. Our rivals have not 
 been hurting our business much of late. Whenever they change 
 their policy and hurt our trade the}^ will hear from us, ' A word 
 to the wise.' There is another and most important subject, con- 
 cerning which we direct the attention of every member be called." 
 
 And then, at the concluding passage, they again 
 show the mode in which they desire to make their 
 presence felt secretly, not as an organisation, but as 
 individuals. 
 
 " The support and friendship as we give them should appear to 
 lie given by us as individuals, or as members of the public organisa- 
 tion. No one should be able to discover by any foolishly spoken 
 words of ours, but these gentlemen have a secret organisation as 
 their friends and allies. We order imperatively that there be no 
 toleration shown to men who cannot observe the utmost secrecy. 
 Any member who violates this order, or shields others who violate 
 it, must be expelled." 
 
 And then there is a very significaiit note of Le 
 Caron or Beach — your Lordships will find it immediately 
 after that circular. 
 
5o6 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 "James Boland is well understood to bo the cliairniaii of the 
 F. C. 
 
 " Interest, as you ^w\\\ note, is all centred in aiding Parnell and 
 controlling League in January." 
 
 My Lords, I have to make an observation about 
 this. I said that I did not rate the importance of Mr. 
 Le Caron, although I think his evidence most important 
 — that I did not rate Mr. Le Caron as high as he was 
 disposed to rate himself. Your Lordships will observe 
 that in the covering letter which I read, he speaks, not 
 as one who knows, but as one who suspects, in relation 
 to Alexander Sullivan, and here he writes the first note, 
 "James Boland is well understood to be the chairman of 
 the F. C." — that is the executive body ; so that he did 
 not apparently know very mucli^ except in an imperfect, 
 indirect, and secondhand manner about what was going 
 on. Then of course I have to make a passing comment 
 upon that matter. If it was true, as he says, that there 
 was an alliance completed in 1881, how comes it that 
 there is not in any one of these communications, from 
 the beginning to the end, a suggestion of any such 
 alliance, but a number of suggestions wholly inconsistent 
 with it, of attempts on the part of the body of which he 
 was a professing member, secretly not as an organisa- 
 tion, but by the action of its individual members, to gain 
 influence and to control the League convention. 
 Chicago My Lords, I come, I am glad to say, to the last of 
 
 tioiirAug. these conventions. That was held in Chicago in August 
 1886. 1886. Again, my Lords, there was the usual prelimi- 
 nary private circular, which your Lordships will find on 
 page 2640. It is, I am happy to say, short : — 
 
 V. C. " You are hereby notified that the triangle deem it essential that 
 
 ircu ai. ^jjepQ shall be a largo attendance of members of the U. S. as dele- 
 gates at the coming convention of the Irish National League in 
 
xx LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 507 
 
 America, to be held at Chicago on the 18tli August, so that there 
 shall he no surrender of national principles in the declarations of 
 that liody. Every branch of the League in your vicinity should bo 
 represented by a member of the U. S." 
 
 Now, my Lords, it is well to remind your Lordships The Policy 
 of the state of things at this moment. That convention tion°"" '^ 
 was in fa(;t held on the 18tli and 19th days of August 
 188G. At this time the policy of conciliation, as it has 
 been called, had been introduced into the House of 
 Commons . by Mr. Gladstone, and had been there de- 
 feated. It is no exaggeration to say, that so far as any 
 public indications will enable one to judge, that that 
 scheme of conciliation was accepted by 99 per cent of 
 the L'isli race at home, in England, and in the greater 
 L-el;ind beyond the Atlantic. 
 
 W(! have now come, therefore, to a point at w^hicli 
 we can judge, from the proceedings at this convention, of 
 the state of things. What was the attitude of the Irish 
 race — the representatives of the Irish race — towards the 
 Home Eule movement ; what was the character of the 
 self-government sought, and were these men content 
 to end this quarrel which had been the cause of misery 
 to Ireland and of weakness to England ? Because the 
 extreme section would rejoice at the trum])cry scheme, 
 as they would call it, of self-government, proposed 
 by this measure, inasmuch as it would strengthen the 
 hands of the irreconcihibles in America. 
 
 My Lords, I can indicate, by the published opinions 
 of leading men, what their views and attitude were 
 before the convention and at the convention. Mr. John 
 Boyle O'Beilly, the editor and proprietor of the paper 
 which is included in the papers furnished by Hie Times 
 as one of the ])npers which published incriminatory 
 matter, and matter connected with the Land League 
 
5o8 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 movement in Ireland, the proprietor of the Boston Pilot, 
 23ublishes tliis despatch : — 
 
 " Gladstone's speech was far aliead of his bill. The hill accords 
 with English selfishness and intolerance. The speech accords with 
 Gladstone's natural sense of justice, magnanimity, and wisdom. 
 With all its faults, Ireland can safely accept the hill for its central 
 boon of Home Rule. Reforms will come for constabulary, customs, 
 duties, life legislators, and land. Gladstone will consolidate the 
 British Empire if England follows him. He has softened Irish 
 hatred of centuries in one day, and he has Avon the respect and 
 gratitude of the Irish race. They await the issue calmly, ready to 
 meet the hand of England in friendship, and not afraid to face more 
 years of hatred and famine, eviction, rebellion, and expatriation. 
 The greater loss will not be Ireland's in the end." 
 
 What was the view of Mr. Alexander Sullivan ? He 
 
 says : — 
 
 "While Gladstone's bill has faults and imperfections, many of 
 which I hope will be struck out before its enactment, it seems on 
 the whole to be the result of a manly and honourable desire on the 
 part of the veteran statesman to crown his legislative career with 
 an act as nearly approaching justice as his peculiar and embarrassing 
 surroundings will permit. It is manifestly the duty of the Irish 
 race throughout the world to sustain Parnell in assisting Gladstone 
 to amend, improve, and finally to enact this bill, which doubtless 
 when so amended Avill be the best measure that can be got through 
 Parliament." 
 
 I'roceed- My Lords, what were the proceedings at the con- 
 
 ohicago vention. We are able to call, yonr Lordships, witnesses 
 1886. ^^^'^ were there and took an active part in those pro- 
 ceedings — Mr. William O'Brien, Mr. John Kedmond, 
 Mr. Deasy, three members of Parliament, and Mr. 
 Davitt. 
 
 The Attorney- General has referred, your Lordships, 
 in relation to this convention, to the speech of one Mr. 
 Finnerty, whom I suppose I may descri1)e as an extremist, 
 or irreconcilable. The speech to which the Attorney- 
 
 < Jonveii- 
 
XX LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 509 
 
 General referred — lie was under a mistake in referrino- 
 to it as lie did — was not a speech delivered at tlie con- 
 vention at all. It was a speech delivered at Ogden 
 Grove, Mr. Michael Davitt also was present, and on 
 that occasion at Ogden Grove, Mr. Davitt, promptly and 
 on the moment, made the speech I am now al)out to 
 refer your Lordships to. It was three days before the 
 convention, namely, the 15th of August, or published in 
 the local paper on the 15th of August, and I think I am 
 entitled from the paper which publishes it, namely, the 
 Chicago Tribune, to read a paragraph, in order that 
 your Lordships may see the sense in which this speech 
 was taken. It says :— 
 
 "Mr. Davitt's speech at Ogden Grove was bold and prudent. 
 It is }irobable that had he indulged in stronger language than he 
 did towards England he would have drawn more applause from the 
 multitude. But Mr. Davitt's mission is to teach rather than to 
 please, to moderate the course of his countrymen rather than to 
 inflame it. No good purpose could be served by violent abuse of 
 the British Government and people." 
 
 My Lords, I read only two j^assages from the 
 speech : — 
 
 " In addition to this resentment expressed by the chairman, I 
 noticed " (referring to his journeyings through America) " a feeling 
 of revenge, while we in Ireland have to choose between wasting our 
 energies in the fruitless policy of revenge, or husbanding tliem in 
 order to use them in the work of Irish independence. Now I, for 
 one, have put on one side the policy of revenge. Most of the 
 people in Ireland — all its leaders, at least — have done the same ; 
 and I maintain that we are right. I would rather, by patient 
 endurance, by suftering insult, by putting up with calumny and 
 misrepresentation, plod on through all my life, working for Irish 
 national self-government than to gratify the natural promptings of 
 the Irish heart to have revenge for what Ireland has suffered in the 
 ])ast. The fight for Irish national self-government looks ])crhaps 
 (liflcrcnt in Ireland to what it docs in Chicago. It is very easy to 
 
5IO THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 establish an Irish Eepublic- 3000 miles away from Ireland l)y 
 patriotic speeches. . . . AVe have therefore, in this contest at home, 
 to work and strive, and, if necessary, suffer for the measure of 
 liberty which it is possible for us to win. If, in being satisfied 
 with less than what satisfies you, we become recreant to the past 
 history of our country, to the past achievements of Irish patriots, 
 then we are quite willing to take the blame. ... If men here in 
 America choose to fight for revenge, choose to resort to retaliation 
 for the wrongs inflicted upon them and their country, we cannot be 
 to blame. It is England that is to blame. I must say, however, 
 that we in Ireland believe that we can work out the destiny of our 
 country ; we can vindicate the Irish national sentiment ; we can 
 realise Irish patriotic aspirations without the aid of dynamite or 
 any policy of that kind." 
 
 My Lords, at that convention a number of resolu- 
 tions were passed, and in answer to a call from what I 
 may term the extreme section of the assembly there, Mr. 
 John Finnerty, who was in the gallery, but was not 
 apparently one of the persons appointed to take part in 
 the proceedings, came and made what might be described 
 as a violent address. It was not to that address that 
 the Attorney-General referred ; it was to the speech at 
 Ogden Grove, in answer to which Mr. Davitt made the 
 reply that I have mentioned. He had scarcely sat down 
 when Mr. Davitt came forward : — - 
 
 " He regretted that he had to intrude again upon their atten- 
 tion, but he could not, representing the men at home, as he did 
 with his colleagues, allow Mr. Finnerty 's speech, coming as it did 
 unexpectedly, to go without a few words of reply. ]\lr. Finnerty 
 had travelled over the pages of Irish history, had repeated all the 
 crimes of which England had been guilty towards Ireland, but did 
 not go back to the Deluge and find fault with the Almighty Creator. 
 'But I find,' said Mr. Davitt, 'men who are loudest in denouncing 
 moral force and speech-making are always the most prone to come 
 forward and make speeches.' " 
 
 Thereupon Mr. Finnerty seems to have been very 
 
XX LE CA RON— THE CONVENTIONS 511 
 
 intlignant, and sprang to his feet, and said Mr. Davitt 
 was insulting liini, whereupon Mr. Davitt said : — 
 
 " I have not insulted Mr. Finnerty, and I am not going to 
 lie intimidated by any one. lie did not call in question Mr. 
 Finnerty's honesty or jiurpose, or his loyalty and his right to 
 express his opinions, but it would seem from his menacing 
 attitude that he would deny him (Davitt) the right which ho 
 (|);ui(t) had conceded. Mr. Davitt had ncvoi' boasted of what ho 
 woidd 1)0 willing to snfl'er for Ii'eland. Mr. Fiiuicrty Avas generous 
 enough to admit that whenever he (Davitt) had been asked to make 
 any sacrifice for Ireland he had never hesitated in doing it. He 
 should not hesitate in doing it to-morrow if he thought by such 
 sacrifice he could advance the cause of Ireland. He had come from 
 the pco})]e of Ireland with his colleagues to represent the movement 
 which was endeavouring by peaceful and constitutional means to 
 work out the principle of Irish national self-government." 
 
 Now, my Lords, what were the resolutions ? The 
 resolutions — carried with one dissentient voice, and in an 
 assenil)ly of delegates from all parts of America, the 
 number of delegates being, ns I understand, as many as 
 1200 — were these : — 
 
 " The committee reported the following resolutions, and they 
 were adopted, with but one dissentient — Mr. John Finnerty. 
 
 " We, the delegates of the Iiish National League of America in 
 convention assembled, firmly believing in the principles of human 
 freedom and the right of a people to frame their own laws, a right 
 which lies at the foundation of the prosperity and greatness of this 
 republic, and Avhicli has been advantageously extended to the 
 colonial possessions of Great Britain, do hereby resolve : — 
 
 " 1. That we express our heartiest and most unqualified 
 
 approval of national self-government for Ireland. 
 " 2. That we heartily approve of the course pursued by Charles 
 Stewart Parnell, and his Parliamentary associates in the 
 English House of Commons ; and we renew the expression 
 of our entire confidence in their wisdom and in their 
 ability to achieve Home Rule in Ireland. 
 " 3. That we extend our heartfelt thanks to IMr. Gladstone for 
 
512 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 his great efforts on behalf of Irish self-government, and we 
 express our gratitude to the English, Scotch, and Welsh 
 democracy for the support given to the great Liberal leader 
 and his Irish policy during the recent general elections. 
 
 " -i. That this convention hereby returns its thanks to the 
 American people and press for the generous support which 
 they have given to the cause of self-government in Ireland. 
 
 " 5. That wo record our sense of the remarkable forljearancc 
 and self-restraint exercised by our peo})le in Ireland in the 
 face of the cruel and dishonest system of extortion to which 
 they are being subjected by rack-renting landlords. . . . 
 
 " 6. That we thank the president, secretary, and treasurer of 
 the Irish National League, for the able and efficient manner 
 in which they have discharged the arduous duties of their 
 respective stations. 
 
 " 7. That the following cablegram be forwarded in the name of 
 the chairman of the convention to Mr. Charles Stewart 
 Parnell : ' Delegates of t he Irish National Convention of 
 America send greetings from our body, which embraces 
 representatives from every state and territory in the Union, 
 and also from Canada, and assure you of a cordial endorse- 
 ment of your policy by a united and harmonious con- 
 vention.' " 
 
 My Lords, I ought to read, T think, one otlicr, and 
 one other thing only, in rehxtion to this convention, and 
 that is a portion of the speech of Wx. John Eedmond. 
 He was invited to address the convention : — 
 
 "The principle embodied in the Irish movement of to-day is 
 just the same principle which was the soul of every Irish movement 
 for the last seven centuries — the principle of rebellion against the 
 rule of strangers. The principle Avhich Owen lioe O'Neil indicated 
 at Benburb, which animated Tone and Fitzgerald, and to which 
 Emmett sacrificed a stainless life. Let no man desecrate tliat 
 principle by giving it the ignoble name of hatred of England. Kace 
 hatred is, at best, an unreasoning passion. I, for one, liclieve in 
 the brotherhood of nations ; and bitter as the memory is of past 
 wrongs and present injustice inflicted upon our i)eo[)le by our 
 alien rulers, I assert the principle underlying our movement is 
 
XX LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 513 
 
 not the principle of revenge for the past, but of justice for the 
 future." 
 
 'riicn liaviiig enlarged eloquently upon the same 
 theme, lie proceeds : — 
 
 " But consistently with that principle, we believe it is possible 
 to bring about a settlement honourable to England and Ireland 
 alike ; whereby the wrongs and miseries of the past may be for- 
 gotten ; Avhereb)^ the chapter of English wrongs, and of Irish resist- 
 ance, may be closed ; and whereby a future of freedom and of 
 amity between the two nations may be inaugurated." 
 
 Now, my liords, I have come to the end of this Tiie vaiue 
 story ; and first let me take the point in relation to Le carons 
 Caron, and summarise the grounds upon which I ask ^"^'^"'^'^• 
 }^our J^ordslii[)S to come to the conclusion, that upon a 
 veiy narrow basis indeed, Le Caron has sought to build 
 a false story and to make an imputation which is 
 unfounded. 
 
 Let me remind your Lordships before I sum up 
 these points that upon the occasion of this interview in 
 London it is not suggested that Beach or Le Caron was 
 known, or ])is positioii known, citlier to Mr. O'Kelly or 
 to J\lr. i^irnell, or that he was introduced, or introduced 
 himself, to either one or the other as a member, or a pro- 
 fessing member, of any secret organisation whatever. 
 On the contrary, seeing the drift of the questions that 
 were being put to him, he answered me in the way that 
 I am now al)out to call your Lordships' attention to at 
 page 2722. 'J'his is in the course of my cross- 
 examination. 
 
 " Eeyond the introduction of you as a friend from America, was 
 there anything more said about you on any of those occasions ? (A.) 
 To whom ? (Q.) To anybody ] (A.) I could not tell you that. (Q.) 
 I am speaking of what you heard yourself ; ])eyond your introduc- 
 tion as a friend fiom America, was there anything else in your 
 
 2 L 
 
514 THE AMERICAN CONNECTION xx 
 
 hearing said about you by Mr. Egan to Parnell, or by Mr. O'Kelly 
 to Mr. Parnell? (A.) In complimentary terms I was spoken of; 
 in substance it woukl mean 'one of our friends from America.' 
 Nothing connecting me with any revolutionary organisation, if that 
 is what you desire to get." 
 
 Recapitu- Now, mv Loicls, let me sum iii) these points. That 
 
 lation. ^ ^ . Tr 11 1 i -i i 
 
 was liis introduction, lie alleges that he eonsidered 
 this conversation important ; yet he makes no written 
 report of it, and he makes no memorandum of it. lie 
 does not write to Mr. Parnell in any way following it 
 up, because he says Mr. Egan told him to write to him 
 (Mr. Egan) ; but strange to say we have no copies of 
 letters purporting to have been written by Beach or Le 
 Caron to Egan, or any letter purporting to have been 
 written from IMr. Egan to Beach or Le Caron. He sug- 
 gests that he was asked to see several persons. He does 
 not tell us whether he did see tliose persons, or he does 
 not tell us, having seen tliose persons, how lie communi- 
 cated Avith them, or how they communicated with liim, 
 except in the case of Devoy, whose letter I have already 
 read to your Lordships. There is no mention in any 
 communication to Anderson of anything that he has 
 done upon the basis of tliis supposed mandate from Mr. 
 Parnell. There is no attempt to draw Mr. Parnell on, 
 in a way which would in any way commit him, which \ 
 should have thought your Lordships would have con- 
 sidered a necessary consequence of this interview, 
 recollecting the infamous part that Le Caron was 
 undoubtedly playing. But the crushing, conclusive argu- 
 ment against I will not say the story, which he tells, 
 but against the inference which he suggests to be drawn 
 from the story he tells, is the history wliich I have now 
 gone into, I believe thoroughly, in which I show your 
 Lordships that, from the beginning to the end of the 
 
XX LE CARON—THE CONVENTIONS 515 
 
 liistory of the action of the secret organisation in 
 addressing its circulars to its members on the eve of 
 tlie conventions, there is no suggestion of any such 
 alliance, hut there is the constant, persistent effort — 
 an elfort wliich proved to be unsuccessful, and at the 
 Chi<'ago convention of 1886 is shown to have utterly 
 (^ollnpsed — to get hold of, to capture, to control, to 
 manij)ulate, the open Land League organisation. 
 
 But, my Lords, this story shows more. It shows 
 that there were consistent and persistent attempts to get 
 hold of and to control the conventions, always by the 
 meml)ers of that organisation as individuals, and not by 
 any collective action ; always under secret cover, always 
 under injunction, that they are not to allow their action 
 to be known or to be apparent. And I do ask in all 
 reason, if that was the course which they pursued, is it 
 not inconsistent with the statement made by Le Caron, 
 and does it not show how imjDossible it was, to those who 
 desired to keep free from any injurious contact or 
 association with such a secret society, to distinguish or 
 to know who were the particular delegates and in what 
 character they were sent to these conventions? It shows 
 an attempt made, but it also records the failure of that 
 attempt, to control the conventions ; and I say that, 
 looking to all the circumstances of the case, it is mar- 
 vellous that Mr. Parnell has, in the whole course of his 
 public conduct, and in the carrying out of his policy, in 
 face of the enormous difficulties which the existence in 
 Ireland and in America of these secret organisations, 
 crossing his path, placed in his way, has been able to 
 keei> l)oth branches of the movement free from that 
 dangerous association as he has done. My Lords, I pass 
 from that, which may be called the American part of the 
 case. 
 
XXL 
 
 THE INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY AND THE FORGED 
 LETTERS 
 
 The In- And HOW, Hiy Loi'ds, I come to tlie part wliicli may 
 be properly described as the history of the Invincible 
 consj)iracy, coupled with the history of the forged letters, 
 I couj)le those two together, because, while I believe that 
 but for these forged letters, these libels would never 
 have appeared, I am still more certain that, but for the 
 possession of these letters, the suggestion of any compli- 
 city, foreknowledge, or subsequent condonation of the 
 doings of the Invincible conspiracy never would have 
 been made against either Mr. Parnell, Mr. Patrick Egan, 
 or any of his leading associates. 
 
 The Times Now, my Lords, let me see what is the evidence as 
 to this conspiracy. I will run over it very lightly. I 
 have had, again and again, to recur to it incidentally, 
 and I think that the main thread of its story is now in 
 your Lordships' hands. The witnesses who speak to 
 this are the two informers, Delaney the convict, and 
 Farragher, and Le Caron — Le Caron's evidence on this 
 head being, I think, of no very considerable importance. 
 In order that I may fully meet it, 1 desire to state fully 
 the evidence, even as it stands, and I do not need to 
 remind your Lordships that when dealing with this, and 
 arguing upon the supposition that this account is true, I 
 
 Evidence. 
 
XXI INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY &- FORGED LETTERS 517 
 
 mn not admitting it to be true. I am taking the 
 account, for the present purpose, as that account stands, 
 pointing out, of course, at particuhir points, the reasons 
 why I say that story is utterly unreUable. DeLaney was 
 tlic principal witness ; in fact, I might say the only 
 important witness on this part of the case. He says 
 tliat tlie Invincil)le conspiracy, so far as his knowledge 
 ^ocs, ])cgan or was introduced into Dublin at the end of 
 J 881, Your Lordships will fnid the evidence at pages 
 185G-59 upon this point. He, at a later date, fixed 
 the end of October 1881 ; and he said that the persons 
 wlio introduced it into Dublin were the American, 
 Captain M'Cafferty; Tynan, known as No. 1; J. Walsh of 
 Middlesborough (I so understand it to be); and Sheridan, 
 whom he described as the committee. 
 
 I am dealing, of course, with Delaney's allegations. 
 So far as I am aware, there is no other reference to any 
 implication of that Walsh of Middlesborough in relation 
 to this except Delaney's. If I am wrong I would be 
 glad to be set right. I am not sure whether there was 
 not a reference to him by Mulqueeny, but none, I think, 
 directly implicating him in this way. He merely showed 
 that he w^as a close friend of Byrne's ; but I do not 
 think there was any evidence upon that point. M'Caf- 
 ferty, frcjm America, was apparently the head of the 
 committee. Then he goes on to say that a Dublin 
 committee was formed, consisting of Carey, Mullett, 
 Curley, and one Edward M'Caffrey, and that other 
 mendjers were James Mullett, his brother, Dan Delaney, 
 ]3rady, Fagan, two Hanlons, F. Byrne, and Boland; and 
 then he proceeded to say, and it is notable in testing the 
 relial)ility of this man's evidence, that Egan and Brennan 
 were tlie principal leaders. Your Lordships will find 
 that remarkable expression at page 1856. 
 
5i8 THE INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY xxi 
 
 Deianey's Now, Hij Loi'cls, ill tliis coiinectioii, Starting with the 
 
 " '^"^*^' statement that this idea was first broached in the end 
 of 1881, or, taking the date that was subsequently 
 suggested, of October 1881, let me point out to you, 
 with reference to facts which are not in dis})ute, liow 
 lying (I must call it so) was this statement. Brennan, 
 whom he declares to have been one of the })rincipal 
 leaders, was arrested as a suspect under Mr. Forster's 
 Coercion Act on the 23d May 1881, and was not released 
 until the 16th June 1882, after the Phoenix Park 
 murders had been accomplished. They took place, your 
 Lordships will recollect, in the month of May 1882. Mr. 
 Egan had gone to Paris, believing that consequent upon 
 the arrest of Davitt there was a design to attack the 
 executive of the Ijcague in Dublin. He went to Paris in 
 February of 1881, and he continued in Paris until August 
 of 1882. I have already said to your Lordships, I believe, 
 but I am not quite certain, that on one or two occasions 
 he visited Dublin, but only for a day during the interval. 
 Then Deianey's evidence proceeds. l^oyton was re- 
 presented to be one of the Invincibles. They were all 
 Fenians except Boyton. They got large sums of money ; 
 and then he uses, at page 1859, this kind of vague and 
 loose language : the money came from the Land League, 
 or from Egan, from Byrne, or from Tynan. Jjut the 
 only occasion on which he saw money was an occasion 
 which he fixes as in Auo;ust of 1882. I am not sure that 
 he fixes the exact date. He refers to it at page 1863. I 
 hope I am not mistaken in this. Your Lordships are all 
 familiar with the evidence. But at page 1863 he fixes 
 that occasion as the only occasion on which, he says, 
 coming into the room he saw money on the table, Byrne 
 being there. He fixes that as August of 1882 ; that is 
 to say, three months after the perpetration of the 
 
XXI AND THE FORGED LETTERS 519 
 
 horrible miirders in the Phoenix Park. That is the date 
 lie efives. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I turn to this man's cross-examina- His cross- 
 tion at page 1873. lie is an old criminal ; but he must tioT^"'^ 
 have b(M^n a very young man, little more than a lad, in 
 1870, when he was convicted of what must have been a 
 highway robl)ery of a serious kind, and sentenced to five 
 years' ])cnal servitude for it. As your Lordships of 
 couvse know, he was, in January 1883, tried for his par- 
 tici})ation in the Plueiux Park murders and sentenced 
 to ten years' penal servitude; but when he is further 
 cross-examined let me ask your Lordships to note, in 
 view of his broad statements as to the participation of 
 Egan, lUennan, and Sheridan, that at page 1887 he says 
 he ]ie\(M' saw |]ga,n to speak to since the 30tli April 
 1880 ; that is to say, the year before there was even a 
 suggestion of this Invincible cons})iracy. He goes on 
 then to say that he never saw Breunau since the day of 
 Davitt's arrest. Tliat was in February 1881. Then he 
 goes on to say that he never saw Sheridan since his 
 (Slieiidan's) arrest under the Coercion Act of 1881, and 
 never spoke to him. The date of Sheridan's arrest was 
 the 15th of March 1881. The only time he saw money 
 was the occasion 1 have already referred to. He never 
 saw and never knew Boyton until one day, when he 
 pointed out a J\lr. Burke — not the Mr. Burke who was 
 murdered, but a Mr. Burke who was, I think he said, 
 chairman of the Prison's Board. 
 
 Then, my Lords, there is Farraglier's evidence. 
 Farraglier's evidence is still vaguer. He says he saw > 
 
 Egan ten or twelve times at Mullett's public-house 
 (pages 2026-63), and tliat he took two letters from 
 hjgan to IMullett in which there was money. He is 
 pressed as to time, circumstance, and date, but is vague ; 
 
520 . THE INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY xxi 
 
 and the nearest approach to a date that he gives is about 
 July or September 1881. 
 
 I have already referred to his evidence, and I do not 
 wish to dwell upon it, lie also states that he saw Wx. 
 Patrick Egan many times at the Land League offices in 
 Dublin, at a time when, you will hear from the wit- 
 nesses, he was not there at all, but was in fact in Paris, 
 He may have been there once or twice, as I tohl your 
 Lordships. Your Lordships will hear about that. 
 
 Le Caron has nothing to say which bears directly 
 upon this point. The only reference Le Caron makes is 
 that remarkable one which, upon the doctrine of con- 
 spiracy, he was permitted to give : the statement of 
 what Egan told him as to what Brennan is alleoed to 
 have told him. 
 
 I am sorry if I allude to it too often, but it is only 
 for the purpose of showing that, except upon the 
 doctrine of conspiracy, the conversation would not have 
 been admissible at all. 
 
 Then there is the evidence of Mulqueeny (page 3592), 
 which only points to the connection — the close connec- 
 tion, I will even put it — between Byrne and Walsh of 
 Middlesborough. I use that name to earmark him. That 
 connection would not be remarkable in the eyes of any 
 of the persons who were taking part in the organisation 
 in England, because Byrne, in his character of secretary 
 of that branch of the organisation in I'jngland, would 
 have had to do with the appointment of organisers ; 
 and there is not the least doubt that Walsh was officially 
 employed and paid for his work in that regard, 
 Deiauey Now I uccd uot rcpcat wluit I liavc said as to the 
 
 borated. character of Delaney, as told by himself, and as to the 
 little dependence that can in justice or fairness be placed 
 upon the evidence of a man with such antecedents, and 
 
AND THE FORGED LETTERS 521 
 
 how still less dependence can be placed upon it in view 
 of the circumstances under which he comes forward to 
 give his evidence. He is approached in prison by an 
 agent representing the prosecution, who approaches him 
 in the character of a friend paying him a friendly 
 visit. He makes a. statement, and, upon what justifica- 
 tion the proceeding rests I know not, but Delaney 
 swears that by Shannon he was sworn to the truth of 
 the statement. ]\ly Lords, can it be doubted that if the 
 man Delaney w\is Avicked enough to contemplate such a 
 thing, he had inducement enough to come and tell the 
 most formidable story that he could, in order that he 
 might have some reasonable grounds for hoping that his 
 prison doors would open before the full period of his 
 sentence had expired. 
 
 i\ly Lords, there are some remarkal)lc features to 
 which attention must be called in relation to this part 
 of the story. We know, or if we did not know, we 
 have a right to assume, that every effort would be made 
 to get corroboration of and support for this story of 
 Delaney 's, if corroboration was forthcoming from any 
 quarter. As to the story of such a man, if this were n. 
 criminal trial, as it is in substance, but a criminal trial 
 entailing penal consequences, the judge would advise 
 the jury not to ac^t upon such tainted evidence which 
 had not been substantially corroborated. There are 
 means for such corroboration, although I admit the 
 sources from which it might be drawn arc tainted. 
 AVhat are they ? I told your Lordships the other day 
 that this Livincible conspiracy, so far as information 
 and evidence extend, numbered somewhere about thirty 
 persons. Of those thirty persons, five have paid the 
 penalty of their lives for their crimes. They are 
 Joseph Brady, Tliomas M'Cafircy, Timothy Kelly, Daniel 
 
522 THE INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY xxi 
 
 Ciirley, Michael Fagan. Those are the men who paid 
 the penalty of their lives ; but in addition to those, my 
 Lords, there were these : First of all, there was Joseph 
 Hanlon, who turned approver at the trial ; there was 
 Edward O'Brien, who was sentenced to ten years' penal 
 servitude ; there was Edward M'Caftrey, who was sen- 
 tenced to ten years' penal servitude ; there was Joseph 
 Mullett, sentenced to penal servitude for life ; William 
 Moroney, ten years' penal servitude ; Laurence ILinlon, 
 penal servitude for life ; Daniel Delaney, brother of 
 Patrick Delaney, penal servitude for life ; George Smith, 
 ten years' penal servitude ; James Fitzharris, penal servi- 
 tude for life. How comes it that these men, or some of 
 them, gross criminals thougli they be, if they could 
 support this story of Delaney, are not forthcoming ? 
 Because I am entitled to assume, criminals and convicts 
 though they be, they are not prepared to add to the list 
 of their offences the crime of infamous perjury. 
 James My Lords, I have a much stronger argument to 
 
 suggest even than that founded upon the absence of this 
 corroboration. Your Lordships recollect that one of the 
 first informers was that wretched creature James Carey. 
 Another was Delaney, called into the box. Those men 
 must have been walling to make any effort to save their 
 lives. Carey sliowed that he was. They knew, as well 
 as your Lordships now know, the attitude which the 
 Government at that time held towards the public move- 
 ment in Ireland, and towards the leaders of that public 
 movement in Ireland. It would have been to the public 
 mind the clearest and the most conclusive justification 
 of their policy if they could have had, even from the 
 lips of these men, a suggestion of complicity by any of 
 the leaders of the movement — a reliable, tangible sug- 
 gestion of any complicity in it. 
 
 Carey. 
 
AND THE FORGED LETTERS 523 
 
 My Lords, tlierc is none. The evidence of Carey 
 has been referred to — a man wliose whole career of 
 deceit and hypocrisy certainly would have made at least 
 a willing agent in any such work as that ; tlie most that 
 can be extorted from iiim is the suggestion, wlien the 
 question is asked in reference to the money which tliese 
 men 1ia,d, tliat some said — M'CafTrey, I tliink, it was — 
 tliat it came from America, and some said that it might 
 come from the Land League. 
 
 Mv TiOi'ds, in view of this condition of things then, 
 I say that the absence of any such accusation or sug- 
 gestion of accusation by these men, whose lives were in 
 peril, l)ut whose lives and whose liberties might have 
 been secured to them by giving information — the fact 
 tliat no such information was forthcoming, is the strongest 
 ])roof that can be adduced of the innocence of those 
 leaders whom we are liere representing, and of the 
 organisation of which they were the head, of any 
 criminal complicity in the evil actions and designs of 
 this limited number of desperate and reckless men. 
 
 My Lords, I have again to remind your Lordships 
 that, althougli in the excited state of pu1)lic feeling in 
 Ireland, pervading all classes from the highest to the 
 loAvest, it would have taken but a small amount of 
 evidence to have justified a true bill, yet no true l)il] 
 was found, or, as far as I know, sent up against either 
 lllgan, or Brennan, or Doyton. I have not yet seen the 
 warrant which is said to have been issued, or on the 
 point of being issued, under Forster's Act, against Egan. 
 
 The conclusion, therefore, to which, at this part of 
 tlie case, I have to invite your Lordships, and to which, 
 1 think, your Lordships will readily and willingly come, 
 is, that there is upon this evidence nothing which can 
 justify any candid, reasoning, impartial mind, in sug- 
 
522 THE INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY xxi 
 
 Ciirley, Michael Fagan. Those are the men who })ai(l 
 the penalty of their lives ; but in addition to those, my 
 Lords, there were these : First of all, there was Joseph 
 Hanlon, who turned approver at the trial ; there was 
 Edward O'Brien, who was sentenced to ten years' penal 
 servitude ; there was Edward M'Caffrey, who was sen- 
 tenced to ten years' penal servitude ; there was Jose})h 
 Mullett, sentenced to penal servitude for life ; William 
 Moroney, ten years' penal servitude ; Laurence Ilanlon, 
 penal servitude for life ; Daniel Delaney, brother of 
 Patrick Delaney, penal servitude for life ; George Smith, 
 ten years' penal servitude ; James Fitzharris, penal servi- 
 tude for life. How comes it that these men, or some of 
 them, gross criminals thougli they be, if they could 
 support this story of Delaney, are not forthcoming ? 
 Because I am entitled to assume, criminals and convicts 
 though they be, they are not prepared to add to the list 
 of their offences the crime of infamous perjury. 
 James My Lords, I have a much stronger argument to 
 
 suggest even than that founded upon the absence of this 
 corroboration. Your Lordships recollect that one of the 
 first informers was that wretched creature James Carey. 
 Another was Delaney, called into the box. Those men 
 must have been willing to make any efibrt to save their 
 lives. Carey showed that he was. They knew, as well 
 as your Lordships now know, the attitude which the 
 Government at that time held towards the public move- 
 ment in Ireland, and towards the leaders of that pulJic 
 movement in Ireland. It would have been to the public 
 mind the clearest and the most conclusive justification 
 of their policy if they could have had, even from the 
 lips of these men, a suggestion of complicity by any of 
 the leaders of the movement — a reliable, tangible sug- 
 gestion of any complicity in it. 
 
 Carey. 
 
AND THE FORGED LETTERS 523 
 
 My Lords, tlicre is none. The evidence of Carey 
 has been referred to — a man whose whole career of 
 deceit and hypocrisy certainly would have made at least 
 a willing ngcnt in any such work as that ; the most that 
 can 1)0 extorted from iiim is the suggestion, wlien the 
 (picstion is asked in reference to the money which tliese 
 men Imd, tliat some said — M'Caffrey, I think, it was — 
 tliat it came from 7\mcrica, and some said that it might 
 come from the Land League. 
 
 My Lords, in view of this condition of things then, 
 I sny that the absence of any such accusation or sug- 
 gestion of accusation by these men, whose lives were in 
 peril, but whose lives and whose liberties might have 
 been secured to them by giving informntion — the fact 
 tliat no such information was forthcoming, is the strongest 
 ])roof that can be adduced of the innocence of those 
 leaders whom we are here representing, and of the 
 organisation of which they were the head, of any 
 criminal complicity in the evil actions and designs of 
 tliis limited number of desperate and reckless men. 
 
 My Lords, 1 have ngaiji to remind your Lordships 
 that, althongli in the excited state of public feeling in 
 Ireland, pervading all classes from the highest to the 
 lowest, it would Imve taken but a small amount of 
 evidence to have justified a true l)i]], yet no true 1)ill 
 was found, or, as far as I know, sent up against either 
 Egan, or Brennan, or Ijoyton. 1 have not yet seen the 
 warrant which is said to have been issued, or on the 
 point of being issued, under Forster's Act, against Egan. 
 
 Tlie conclusion, therefore, to which, at this part of 
 the case, I have to invite your Lordships, and to which, 
 I think, your Lordships will readily and willingly come, 
 is, tliat there is upon this evidence nothing which can 
 justify any candid, reasoning, impartial mind, in sug- 
 
524 THE INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY xxi 
 
 gesting that upon any of tlie leaders of the movement, 
 or upon the organisation itself, there rests the shadow 
 of an imputation of complicity, by foreknowledge or by 
 subsequent condonation in this conduct. Of course 1 
 say this always apart from the question of the forged 
 letters which was the foundation for the whole of this 
 part of the case. 
 The Forged And HOW, my Lords, I come to the consideration of 
 the question of the letters. My Lords, I ask this ques- 
 tion, lias there ever been revealed in a court of justice 
 a tale of such serious calumny, put forward with such 
 recklessness, I might almost say criminal negligence, as 
 this story of the forged letters % I cannot recall one. 
 Not only has it been put forward, but, in the face of 
 public denial, persisted in — rancorously persisted in— 
 and even when fully exposed, absolutely discredited and 
 collapsed, even then there is not that generous dis- 
 claimer, that absolute and complete withdrawal, which, 
 as an act of common justice and common charity, ought 
 to have proceeded from those who had launched these 
 infamous accusations. I do not wish the application of 
 my words to be in any sense misunderstood. I have to 
 say, and have said, many hard things of The Thnes. I 
 am not going to suggest that they believed that these 
 were forged when they put them forward, l)ut I am 
 going to suggest that they put them forward utterly 
 careless, utterly reckless, and omitting to take any of 
 those precautions which in so serious a matter it would 
 have been their first duty to take. Nor do I wish to 
 be misunderstood in the application of my language as 
 to the withdrawal of those letters. The Attorney- 
 General has stated (and of course I accept his state- 
 ment) that he went to the very verge of his duty in 
 the language which he used, carefully written out, upon 
 
XXI AND THE FORGED LETTERS 525 
 
 tlie occasion of that withdrawal. I am wilHiio' to believe 
 that if h(^. had had a free hand in the matter he would 
 have spoken more generously and more freely, and that 
 it was only the strict line of duty, which was laid down 
 for him by those who iustructed him, that caused that 
 cramped, that narrow, that grudging withdrawal, and 
 the terms in which the withdrawal was conveyed. 
 
 ]\[y Tjords, I wish to make in this connection one p.ameir.s 
 ol)servation wdiicli 1 conceive to be of great moment. 
 JMany people^ — ay, people of honest minds — have been 
 inclined to believe in the 2^enuincness of these letters, 
 because of tlie action, or perhaps more correctly it may 
 be called the inaction of Mr. Parnell himself in regard 
 to them. ]\Iy Lords, those who think that, may think 
 it, not unnaturally, if they do not know Mr. Parnell. 
 From the first he has cared and busied himself very 
 little about the (juestiou of proving and establishing 
 before your Lordships the falsity and forgery of these 
 letters. lie felt no doubt about establishing their 
 forgery. What he has cared for, what he cares for now, 
 is the unmasking of what he believes to be the foul plot 
 and cons[)iracy which led to their manufacture, and if it 
 be within your Lordships' functions to aid him he will 
 involve that aid before this inquiry is closed ; and if it 
 be not within your Ijordshi])s' functions to aid him, he 
 will pursue that inquiry perseveringly and relentlessly 
 until lie exposes it. 
 
 Lut. my Lords, if there be men who have founded 
 an oj)inion or a suspicion in relation to the genuineness 
 of these letters, because of the course IMr. Parnell pur- 
 sued, let me point out to your Lordships how thoroughly 
 events have justified the course he pursued. He is 
 a man of great self-control, impassive, self-contained. 
 What would have happened if he had, upon the publication 
 
526 THE INVINCIBLE CONSPIRACY 
 
 nigs in 
 O'Doiinell 
 
 of these letters, gone into a court of justice and charged 
 as a libel the publication of these forgeries ? Wliy, 
 Justified that which happened in the case of O'Donnell v. Walter, 
 Proceed- whicli is recordcd in the Blue Book before your Lord- 
 ships. He would have gone into tlie box ; he wouUl 
 Walter, j-^.j^^g given his testimony to the forgeries ; he would 
 have supported his evidence by tlie evidence of such 
 experts as he could call. He would be cross-examined, 
 ably, properly cross-examined. He would be asked how 
 it came that instead of challenging the whole field and 
 area of these libels, he had restricted it to the question 
 of the foro-eries : and his answer that he so restricted 
 it because that brought up for decision a narrow and 
 definite issue, and kept that narrow and definite issue 
 free from the complication arising over discussion of 
 popular political movements, would not have been 
 accepted by those who put the cpiestions, or probably 
 by the jury who heard it, as wholly satisfactory ; and 
 then when his case was closed tlie turn of the Attorney- 
 General would have come, and he would have used in 
 that case the lanouao-e whicli he did use in O'Donnell v. 
 Walter, and which is in the volume before your Lord- 
 ships. At page 91 the Attorney-General was instructed 
 to say : — 
 
 " You will find that that " (referring to one of these letters) 
 " and other documents Avere in their " (that is, The, Times) " posses- 
 sion for a considerable time, for many months, while most careful 
 investigation was being made as to whether or not they were 
 genuine documents, and you will be told the means which they took 
 to investigate them, the comparisons they were able to make, and 
 which you will be able to make. The question is, is that particular 
 document (and that is not l)y any means the only document) a 
 genuine document or not? I mean, was it signed by Charles 
 Stewart Parnell, or was it not ? It is utterly inunaterial where it 
 came from. Now the statement made by Mr. liuegg was this : ' I 
 
XXI AND THE FORGED LETTERS 527 
 
 pliall want to know what proof the}^ have in the face of the positive 
 denial upon oath of tlie itorsoii to whom tlio letter is attributed that 
 h(^ wrote that letter.' Of course, gentlemen, "we shall wait and see 
 what that denial is. 'We shall want to know where they got it, 
 and yon will want to know from whom they got it, that you may 
 test its value.' Gentlemen " (says the Attorney-General, addressing 
 the jury), "you do not want to know from whom they got it, or for 
 what purpose they got it. Why do they want to know it? Who 
 ai'e behind Mr. lluegg in this matter"? The men who were un- 
 doubtedly coinuicted witl) the Land League organisation, the men 
 who had been undouljtedly coiniected with the worst form, it maj' 
 lie, of the orgaiusation, by which I mean the American section — 
 the Link IJattalioTj as it has been called — the American branch — 
 the Invinciblcs, who were capable, on my learned friend's own ad- 
 mission, of the monstrous and iniquitous crimes that Avere per- 
 [letrated in the autumn of 1881." 
 
 Tlien lie goe.s on : — 
 
 " Many of those men are still in existence. Those who are be- 
 hind my friend know well that the days of danger from dynamite 
 and assassination are not over, and, cost what it may to The Timrs, 
 although they will put before you the proof of the grounds upon 
 which they believed thein to be geimine, they will not expose one 
 of the several })crsons from whom those documents were obtained 
 to a risk, which they know to be a real risk, that many hours would 
 not elapse from the time of their names being given and returning 
 to theii' vocations before tlie}^ would be in actual and positive 
 danger to their lives. Gentlemen, you will not care who the people 
 are. You will test the documents — we invite you to do so by everj' 
 means in your power which are open to 3^ou, and oi)en to everyone 
 who has to decide the issue whether the documents are genuine, 
 and if you are satisfied that the documents are genuine you will not 
 care from whom they come, or what was the hand that put it in the 
 ))owcr of The Times to disclose them. They ought to care, and I 
 l)elieve you will care for what the fate of those men would be if, the 
 documents being genuine, they have disclosed them, and I say here 
 Th(' Times arc fidly aware of the responsibility they take. They will 
 put before you such evidence as they can, and all the evidence they 
 can to prove the letters to be genuine, but they will not, what(^ver 
 may l)e the effect upon your judgment, disclose for one single instant, 
 
528 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 or by the slightest hint, the name of the person from Avhom tliey got 
 them, because it is not material, and it is in no sense necessary in 
 order that you should come to a judgment in determining whether 
 these documents are genuine. The question is, are they genuine 1 
 who wrote them, and Avho signed them ? and not whether they were 
 obtained from this man or that man, or by what means they were 
 put into the custody of The Times." 
 
 And then, my Lords, at page 97 lie refers to tlie same 
 matter. Referring to the letter, he says : — 
 
 " It is an incident, and an incident only, in this case, but of course 
 a most important one. Let me say this to you, and I repeat it to you, 
 that though it cost The Times this verdict. The Times will not state 
 
 by whom " 
 
 and I ask your attention to these words — 
 "Avhether confederate or not of Charles Stewart Parnell — that 
 letter was handed over to them, and it is not right, knowing what 
 has happened in the last few years — ay, within the last few months 
 — that any such request should be made." 
 
 Was the Attorney-General instructed — I am sure he 
 would not have made it without instructions— was it 
 suggested to him that these letters had been handed 
 over by a confederate of Mr. Parnell ? If he wns so in- 
 structed, upon what authority ? Who so instructed him ? 
 My Lords, the case would then have gone to the 
 jury, after the expert evidence had been given. Mr. 
 Parnell would not have got to that point in this inquiry, 
 which he is determined if he can to get to, the story 
 that lies, as he believes, l)cliind Houston and behind 
 Houston. Pigott, He does not believe that Houston, a (pioiulam 
 reporter — a respectable occupation, and 1 am not saying- 
 it by way of contumely of him — Houston, a quondam 
 reporter on Dublin newspapers, afterwards promoted to 
 the office of secretary of the Loyal and Patriotic Pinion — 
 he does not believe that Mr. Houston adventured on this 
 enterprise, involving, as it turns out, the expenditure of 
 
XXI HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 529 
 
 tlioiisaiids of pounds, in his own cliaracter of a private 
 person. lie does not Ijelievc that Professor Maguire, 
 wlio unhappily cannot now be called, was in a position 
 to advance, or did advance of his own money, a sum of 
 nearly a thousand pounds. lie does believe that these 
 g(?nt]emen, one and all, were members of that associa- 
 tion, and, if his information is right, members of the 
 iinance committee of that association, and that it was 
 from that body, representing the lauded interests of 
 Ireland, a class which, because of the conduct and the 
 }><)Iicy of Mr. Parnell, has been arrayed in active 
 hostility against him in his public life — ay, and has 
 been backing up The Times'wx this inquiry — it is because 
 of that that he declines to believe the story put forward 
 l)y jMi'. JFouston, which he desires and intends to sift 
 h(^rc oi- clsewlu'i'c, or both, to the bottom. 
 
 iMy Lords, let me follow out this story. In the 
 autumn of 1885 Mr. Houston goes to visit Richard 
 Pigott. Mr. Houston is himself an Irishman, or the son 
 of an Irishman — an Irish prison official in Ireland, as 1 
 am informed. He had lived his life, so far as we know 
 it, in iJublin. He had been conversant with political 
 mattei-s in Dublin, because his occupation had been, as 1 
 have said, as reporter upon several papers. He must 
 have Ivuown the story of lii('liard Pigott, for the whole 
 world of Ireland knew it. Your Lordships may not be 
 aware of the fact that at the very time that the forged 
 hotter, known as the facsimile letter, appeared, there 
 also appeared in a liondon newspaper, the paper called 
 Truth, the statement, that it was suspected either that 
 this letter was not 6ne written by Mr. Parnell, but to 
 which his name had been got for some other purpose, or 
 it was suspected and believed that it was a forgery pro- 
 ceeding from Kichard Pigott — that, my Lords, at the 
 
 2 M 
 
530 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 very time the publication jippearecl — known to all the 
 world, known, of course, to the proprietors of Hie. Times^ 
 known, of course, to those who instructed my learned 
 friends. 
 Pigott. Well, my Lords, Houston approaches Pigott. I do 
 
 not want to say more of that wretched man than is \\\\- 
 avoidable. I am sure I do not know ui)on whom the 
 greater burthen of moral guilt rests in this matter. It is 
 to be said of this wretched man that at all events he can- 
 not be accused of bringing voluntarily Ids spurious wares 
 into the market. It is at least true to say for him that 
 in his wretched penury, with children dependent upon 
 him, at a time that he was begging for small sums of 
 relief, at a time that he was complaining of the pressure 
 of distress so great that his very goods were to be seized 
 for the payment of his rent, it is at that time that the 
 tempter comes to him ; and to this man, in whom at all 
 events there survived the strong instincts of fatherly 
 affection with some four children depending upon him, 
 and no honest means of earning a livelihood, then comes 
 the tempter, holding out to him a prospect of indefinite 
 employment upon terms of one pound a day while 
 he was working, and one guinea, I think it was, a day 
 for his expenses. Then a little time passes. lie has 
 been asked, if he can get hold of any documents to in- 
 criminate any of the leaders ? He says he will try. He 
 goes, or pretends to go, pleasantly journeying bactkwards 
 and forwards at the expense of the Loyal and Patriotic 
 Union (or Mr. Houston), and after a little time he comes 
 The First witli liis first batch. But meanwhile Mr. Houston pays 
 Lord iiart- ^ ^'i^it to Tlic Times, and makes an offer to Lord 
 ingtou. Hartington, and is suggested to have made overtures to 
 Tiie Pall the Pall Mall Gazette. I do not stoj) to inquire into 
 Oazttte. these. They are not the main thread of my story. But 
 
XXI HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 531 
 
 wliat is tlie course, when they come to closer quarters, 
 and wlien these payments have to be made, whicli 
 Jlouston pursues ? T do not desire, moved as I am (as I 
 confess I nm) to indignation at his conduct, to put it 
 liigher iJuin the hare fncts justify. Houston deliberately 
 puisuos a course of conduct in relation to this infamous 
 story such as would have been 2)ursued (I will say no 
 more than that) by a man that knew he was lending 
 himself to a delilierate manufacture of deliberate forgeries; 
 for llo^V else and on what rational ground can you ex- 
 plain tliat in his payments to Pigott he pursues every 
 device and contrivance to render it impossible to trace 
 the fact that he has paid tlie money ? How comes it that 
 he destroys every vestige, according to his account, of 
 correspondence with Pigott ? But when does he destroy 
 it? Not during tlie production and manufacture of 
 these lettcis, l)ut when your Lordships' court is sitting, 
 after tlu3 incpiiry lias begun, and when he knows that 
 your Lordships would take no denial when the question 
 of the genuineness of these letters came to be considered, 
 when he knows that he will be called upon to produce 
 tlie whole of that correspondence. Nay, more, he takes 
 that course of conduct which I say is just the course of 
 C(Uiduct that a man knowing he was engaged in an in- 
 famous fraud would have followed. He destroys those 
 documents after he has had the subpoena from the soli- 
 citor, Mr. Lewis, who instructs me, and after that sub- 
 pcLMia had required him as by an order from tlie court 
 to produce the documents or any documents which would 
 tlirow light upon the subject of this inquiry. 
 
 I do not know whether Mr. Houston is master or 
 man in the Loyal Patriotic Union. I do not know 
 whether they can afford, whether they dare afford, to 
 send him about Ids business ; but I say, in the face of 
 
532 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 
 
 his own confession in this court of the course he li;is 
 pursued in rehition to this nicatter, he is unwortliy of" the 
 confidence of any respectable ))ody of men or of an}^ 
 respectable individual. What is the next step 1 'J'hat 
 was in July 1886. Houston brought to The Times, on 
 the princij)le of " sale or return," in the last week of 
 November or the beginning of December 188G, the first 
 batch of forged letters ; and wliat is paid for them ? 
 The story is a remarkable and interesting story in 
 relation to tlie first batch. According to one statement, 
 What they the Statement of Mr. Macdonald, a sum of £1780 
 rLes. "^ altogether has been paid. The cheques put in l)y Mr. 
 Soames— for he was the medium of the payment to 
 Houston— are £1000 on the 4th of May 1887 ; £200 on 
 the 25th of July 1887 ; £30 on the 8th of October 1887 ; 
 £40 on the 13th of Decemljer 1887; and on the 27th 
 of January 1888 £200, making £1470. The other 
 statement — and there must be something to explain 
 which I have not been able to follow, and do not care 
 to stop to follow — is the statement in the account given 
 by Mr. Macdonald: payment in May 1887 of £1000; 
 in July of £400 ; in January of £200 ; also in January 
 £180; making together the sum of £1780. Of that 
 sum for the first batch Pigott got £500 and 100 
 guineas for himself ; and there were altogether computed 
 about £975 expenses — Mr. Houston keeping £200 for 
 his own expenses — the expenses consisting of the 
 journeyings of Pigott hither and tliither on these in- 
 famous quests. My Lord, those he represented, the 
 company, or syndicate, or partnership of Tlie Times, or 
 those, at least, who have come before us, seem to have 
 lost their heads over this matter. The only one who 
 seems to have kept something like self-(;ommand was 
 Mr. Buckle. He seems wisely to have declined person- 
 
XXI HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 533 
 
 ally to enter into any negotiation with Mr, Houston, but 
 passed liim on to Mr. MacdonalJ. 
 
 The second batch is obtained; the cry is for more. The Second 
 Political hatred and animosity were not yet satisfied; 
 and as Pigott had found there Avas a demand at high 
 ])rices for these wares, ther(5 was little difficulty in 
 obtaining the second batch, and they, my Lord, were 
 maiiufactured and delivered according to contract in the 
 l)cgiiiniiig of 1888. 
 
 8till, my Lord, there is a demand, and accordingly a 
 further su})ply is forthcoming to meet the demand, and 
 the third batch is delivered in April 1888, upon the Thmi 
 
 Batcli. 
 
 occasion of the trial of OTJonnell v. Walter. Now, 
 what had The Times done up to this time ? I said 
 April— July 1888 was the third batch, and it was in July 
 1888 that the trial of U'Donuell v. Walter took place. 
 
 Now, my Lords, what was the state of the infor- 
 mation that The Times had ? What were the means of 
 inquiry that they had? AVliat inquiry did they make? 
 Peforc the trial of O'Donnell v. AValter Mr. Macdonald 
 knew that they came from Eichard Pigott, because he 
 had at the time tluit letter — another forged letter — 
 which purported to be addressed by Mr. Parnell to Richard 
 Pigott himself, and in which Richard Pigott's name 
 a]>})ears. Others had become aware of the fact that this 
 correspondence also came from Pilchard Pigott. Mr. 
 Soames, of wdiom it is a pain to me to speak in any terms 
 of anything like, if I may use the expression, severe repre- 
 hension — I believe Mr. Soames to be a respectable profes- 
 sional man — he has had here, undoubtedly, a most difficult 
 ]iart to play. He is, he tells us, not merely on this 
 inquiry the solicitor of llie Times, but he is on the 
 permanent staff of Tlie Times; and I am afraid I must 
 say he has allowed his partisan feeling to carry him 
 
534 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 away to sucli an extent as completely to blind his judg- 
 ment, and to commit liim to a course of conduct which, 
 under other circumstances, I am sure his good sense 
 would have saved him from. J3ut by the time of the 
 trial of O'Donnell v. Walter he had got to learn that 
 Richard Pigott was the source from which these letters 
 were obtained. I do not inquire — I have no right to 
 inquire — the Attorney-General may think it right him- 
 self to refer to it — I have no right to inquire what his 
 knowledge was ; but I have a right to say this, what 
 course, in view of such a state of things, would any man 
 of experience in the world or at the bar feel bound to 
 pursue ? What course would a newspaper, what course 
 ought a newspaper, to feel bound to pursue ? I hope I 
 am not putting it too high when I say that Avhen the 
 press comes to a point, when they believe it to be their 
 right, or to be their duty, to launch gravely calumuious 
 charges against any man, that before they do that they 
 must satisfy themselves with almost judicial impartiality 
 that they have solid, certain foundation for the accusa- 
 tions that they are making, and that they are serving 
 some public object in making them. 
 What The. Hcrc is an attack made against a numl)er of 
 
 Times did iit pii • •,• 
 
 not do. nien holding, many oi them, conspicuous positions iii 
 public life, forming a considerable and important party 
 in the House of Commons. Now, in view of that state 
 of thing's, and on the eve of launchino" these charges, 
 what was the course that ought to have been pursued ? 
 What was the first idea that would commend itself to 
 the minds of any, the least experienced of my learned 
 friends whom I see in court around me ? lilach of your 
 Lordships has had frequently to deal with a number of 
 cases in which there have been forgeries inquired into 
 in courts of justice, not the forgery of one or two men's 
 
HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 535 
 
 liniidwritiiig', Lut the forgery of a number ; and if I 
 needed to point to a recent instance, I might point to 
 the facts of a case which your Lordships will see recorded 
 in nn elaborate judgment of Mr. Justice Charles, a case 
 which my learned friend the Attorney -General and 
 myself know well, the case of Yagliano and the Bank of 
 England, where a clerk of £120 a year, for a period of 
 nine months, not only forged one name but half a dozen 
 names, and kept up so as to deceive his employers and 
 others for a term of nine months a systematic forgery, 
 which resulted in the defrauding either the Bank of 
 England or his employers of the sum of £90,000. 
 The first inquiry would be, not what view an expert 
 would take as to the dotting of an i, the crossing of a t, 
 or the curling of a q, a ?/, or a g, but the first question 
 which woidd occur to any man would l)e this : " Where 
 do these come from ? Whose is the hand from which 
 they are immediately obtained ? " 
 
 I do not know whether your Lordships observed, but 
 I was struck with it at the time, that Mr. Houston in 
 giving his evidence was very careful to point out that 
 in })assing them on to The Times he gave no guarantee 
 whatever about their genuineness. What did they do ? 
 They delivered them to one expert ; they made no 
 in(piiry Avho Richard Tigott was. No, I do not, and 
 cannot understand it. It should be capable of explana- 
 tion, but the explanation does not occur to my mind, 
 and none has l)ccn given. (3n the A^ery eve of this inquiry 
 they had not even subpcjenaed Richard Pigott, although 
 they had before that date known that he was in com- 
 munication with Houston, and known from Houston 
 that he was the man from whom all these letters without 
 exce]>tion came. I marvel at it. I do not understand it. 
 
 AYas it up to that time conceived possible that 
 
536 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 Pigott was not to be produced ? Was it up to tliat date 
 conceived possible that your Lordships wouhl be content 
 with the statement of Houston that he got them IVoni 
 somebody, witliout disclosing the somebody ? Your 
 Lordships will recollect the Attorney-General's explana- 
 tion given upon the subject. He said in eifect : — 
 
 The. Times " I am not authorised hy Mr. Houston to state wlio the letters 
 on'pac • gr^jj^g from. I hope to be in a position to state from Avhom Mr. 
 Houston got them ; but I cannot at present tell you from whom he 
 (lid get them ; because he got them under the seal of secrecy, and 
 until that seal is removed with the permission of the person with 
 whom the compact was entered into we cannot break the com- 
 pact." 
 
 It turns out, my Lord, that in the ordinary sense of 
 the word there was no compact at all. In answer to 
 the question put by my learned friend Mr. Ascjuith, in 
 the course of his most effective cross-examination, Mr. 
 Macdonald said that there was no compact or understand- 
 ing beyond the ordinary newspaper understanding, that 
 the source of information would not be disclosed. But, my 
 Lords, in view of imputations of this kind, in view of an 
 inquiry of this kind, it is idle to say that any such 
 understanding, or even any such express compact, could 
 be relied upon. Mr. Pigott was not subpoenaed to attend 
 as a witness here until long after he liad been subpa'nacd 
 on the part of Mr. Parnell. 
 
 \k\t, my Lords, not only was no incjuiry miide then, 
 but certain circumstances were meanwhile transpiring. 
 On the 19th of October Pigott gives to Mr. Soames the 
 first statement of his evidence. On the following Mon- 
 day, the 21st of October, that statement is taken by Mr, 
 Soames, as he told your Lordships in the box at one 
 of the later stages of his examination, to the Attorney- 
 General, and he pointed out upon the face of the note 
 
XX [ HISTORY OF THE FORGED LF TIERS 537 
 
 taken of liis examinntioii tliat there were on that paper 
 tlic i)cnril-niarks indicatino; that it ]iad l)een read by the 
 Attorney-Gieneral. At tliat date, at all events, on the 
 eve of the inquiry, counsel, or at least the leading 
 counsel, knew that they came from Pigott, If so, why 
 at that stage was no inquiry made ? Again 1 marvel ; 
 1 cannot suggest or understand why not. On the 25tli 
 of October it comes to tlic knowledge of Mr. Soames 
 that Pigott had liad an interview with Mr. Parnell, Mr. 
 Laboucliere, and Mr. Oeorge Lewis at ]\lr. Ijabouchere's 
 liouse ; and it is noteworthy in passing to show that 
 according to Pigott's letters of the 11th and 17th of 
 Noveml)er, Mr. Soames and Mr. Houston were j^artics 
 and ])rivu to those interviews. So Pigott states in the 
 lettci's, mid lluit st;i(cmcnt lins not, so fnr as I am aware 
 of", been denied. 
 
 I'licy get a furtlicr amended statement from Pigott; 
 still ]io inquiry about his character or antecedents. 
 Further letters passing Ijetween liim and Houston. Of 
 tJieir character and })urport we cannot tell, for Houston 
 destroyed tliem. Finally, a letter, most significant and 
 important, of the 11th of November 1888. My Lords, 
 luckily for tlie interests of truth, Pigott not only sent 
 tliat letter to Houston, but sent a co[)y on to Mr. 
 Soames, and if it had not been for the fact that Mr. 
 Soames got that copy your Lordships wandd have heard 
 nothing of it. I presume it would have been, like the 
 rest, destroyed l)y Mr. Houston. 
 
 Then follows an intermediate letter — the letter ofpigottand 
 ]\lr. Soames to Mr. Piiiott — which has no reference to the ' °^^^^- 
 suggestions discrediting his testimony contained in the 
 letter of 1 1th November. It recites, in almost formal 
 I'asiiion, the account which Pioott had oiven of his inter- 
 view with Mr. Lal)ouchere, and of the alleged offer of Mr. 
 
538 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 Laboiicliere, and then goes on to make what ha.s been 
 called "the arrangement in writing," that 'ilw, Tunes 
 were not to see Pigott come to harm if he came into tlie 
 box and told the truth. Tlien comes the letter of 1 7th 
 November ; but my Lords, they had before any of these 
 letters pursued a very extraordinary course. Tliey liad 
 got this man on the 7th of Novem])er to make a statu- 
 tory declaration — I am not sure it was not the second 
 declaration that was made. The declaration, I think, is 
 dated the 7th, and they received it on the 8th. And in 
 that declaration he sets out the fact, amongst others, tliat 
 at the interview on the 25th October Mr. George Lewis 
 had, in terms, told him, Pigott, that he was the forger. 
 
 I will here pause to say this. The one thing that we, 
 representing Mr. Parnell and others, did not know be- 
 fore the 25tli October was wliether Pigott was the man 
 
 o 
 
 who had conveyed all the letters to Houston. Once that 
 fact was clear and estal)lished, we wanted, for we cared 
 for, nothing more, 1)ecause, I think, I shall demonstrate 
 to your Lordsliips that that fact once established, ])i()of 
 of forgery brought home to Pigott was an easy matter. 
 Li the further letter which follows of I7tli November, 
 he goes into the statement of the incriminatory sugges- 
 tions made against himself, and he says in effect, what 
 he had said in his letter of the 10th, but more in detail 
 and more strongly, that he is a witness who, if called, 
 must be on his cross-examination so discredited that he 
 will do the side that calls him more harm than good. But 
 in that letter of 17th, or rather in the statutory declara- 
 tion of the 7th November, he mentions one distinct fact. 
 He mentions the fact that Mr. Parnell had charged him, 
 Pigott, with other forgeries ; that he, Mr, Parnell, could 
 prove that Pigott had committed a scries of other for- 
 geries. Therefore there is at this stage, at least, the 
 
XXI HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 539 
 
 fullest information given to those representing The Timcft 
 as to what kind of person Pigott is alleged to be, and 
 the means of judging for themselves, by inquiry, whether 
 he was or was not a relial)le witness. And yet we have it 
 iioni Mr. Soanies that from that time, or before that 
 time, or up to the moment when Pigott was put into the 
 box, thei'e was not one single question put to any one in 
 any quarter ; not one single inquiry made as to the char- 
 acter and antecedents of the man upon whose evidence 
 they desired to blast the reputation and drive from 
 j)ublic life men for whom we here appear. 
 
 My Lords, Mr. Parnell made that statement of his 
 ability to prove a series of other forgeries against Pigott, 
 and made it on good authoiity. He can prove it, and I 
 will only point out to your Lordships that it is a matter 
 which 1 would have been entitled to put to the wretched 
 man if he had appeared here at the conclusion of his 
 cross-examination. I had the persons concerned, or at 
 least some of them, in attendance, and they were such 
 
 . Well, my Lords, I do not desire to pursue it ; I 
 
 a.m justified in saying, as Mr. Parnell will tell you, that 
 lie had justification for the statement made. 1 will say 
 no more. I do not w^ish to blacken the unhappy man's 
 memory in any way that <*an l»e avoided. 
 
 My Ijords, still no incpdry. All this in the month 
 of November 1888. Day after day, irregularly, I am 
 afraid — exceedinoly so, I am afraid — for more than once 
 your Lordships have said, I and my learned friends kept 
 aggressively pressing that the question of the letters 
 should be put forward. Day after day, week after week, 
 they wei'e delayed and i)Ostponed. From November, 
 Avith full information, no in(pury is made until in the 
 month of February, when the (piestion of the letters is 
 leached, and even then how is it presented ? 
 
540 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 rouduct of Is it too much to say tliat i^^^, Soamos and my 
 Case. learned friends then felt that they were indeed iisliiiii;' 
 in very dirty waters ; for if they had not at that time, I 
 will not say the belief — that would be too strong a thing 
 to say — but if they had not at that time the strongest 
 suspicion that they were leaning indeed upon a rotten 
 staff, is it possible to conceive that the course pursued 
 would have been pursued. Nay, I think you might even 
 put it further, in view of the circumstance which must 
 have then been in their minds, which must have, at all 
 events, suggested to them that they and those whom 
 they represented must have been misled or im}tc)St'd 
 upon, or may have been misled and may have been 
 imposed upon. Would not the fair, the generous, the 
 proper course for The Times to have taken, been, to liave 
 met the case, not with a view of exhausting every eifort 
 of ingenuity, by the production of other witnesses, to fix 
 some stain upon political opponents ; but to meet this 
 case fully, and if it l)roke down, because of the unhappy 
 evidence by which it was supported, let it break down 
 — and break down to the rejoicing and satisfaction of 
 every honest and honourable man. Uli, no ! In the 
 place of ]\Ir. Pigott being first called, we have Mr. 
 Soames ; then we have jMr. ]\Iacdonald and Mr. Houston ; 
 and then we have, as a kind of platform on which to 
 Ijuild or buttress up the evidence of Pigott, we have the 
 attempt made to interpose the expert evidence, a course 
 which I cannot ever recall to have been pursued in any 
 court of justice, even where private interests and private 
 litioation alone were concerned. 
 Pigotfs Now, my Lords, what is the story this man Pigott 
 
 °^^" tells ? His story is that he went to Lausanne and had 
 a conversation with one Davis, got a long statement, 
 which I hope I may be excused for calling a rigmarole — 
 
XXI HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 541 
 
 a statemeut containing, no doubt, a number of very 
 serious imputations, but all, so to speak, secondhand or 
 third-hand ; but still gets no documents, which were 
 the objects of his quest, which was the object for which 
 Houston liad employed and i)aid him. He came back 
 to Paris, and he was strolling up one of the boulevards 
 one day, when a man accosted him. He had never 
 seen the man before, he did not know him, the man 
 gave tlie n;imo of JNIaurice iMurphy, but Murphy, said he, 
 ]iad formeily been employed in The Irishman newspaper 
 oliice as a printer. To Murphy Pigott conveyed the First 
 object of which he was in pursuit. Murphy said he ■^''^'" 
 could not help him, but subsequently told him that he 
 had discovered tliat there had been left behind in Paris, 
 in an apartment supposed to have been occupied Ijy 
 Byrne or Brennau — I think he said Byrne originally — 
 a l)lack bag. Then said Pigott, " Let me see the black 
 bag ; " whereupon Murphy said, " Oh, no, orders from 
 important persons must be obtained before the contents 
 of the black bag can l>e disclosed," and that his orders 
 were to come from America. Why they did not come 
 from America, why they were not sent from America, 
 does not appear — Pigott represents he went to America. 
 I do not stop to inquire whether he thought the sea trip 
 would do his health good or not ; whether, in fact, he 
 went to New York at all. He says he did, and that he 
 was waited upon by some gentleman who had had 
 information in some mysterious way of his advent to 
 New York, and that from this person he received 
 authority to obtain the documents iu the mysterious 
 black bag — Breslin was the name — and that he then 
 returned, and the contents of the black bagj were then 
 supposed to be availalile. 
 
 Your Lordsliips will not be surprised to hear that 
 
542 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 Breslin — who was fixed upon as the person he saw in 
 America, and who was supposed to liave given the 
 autliorisation for dealing with the mysterious contents 
 of the bhick bag — is dead. He returns, and certainly 
 this is a very extraordinary story, as tohl not ah)ne by 
 Houston, l)ut by Pigott. The story is this : tliat 
 Doctor Maguire, now no more, and Houston, went over 
 to Paris. They put up at one hotel, Pigott at another. 
 On a particular morning Pigott came to them and said, 
 " Here are the letters, a man is waiting below. Examine 
 them ; see if they are all right." They examined them, 
 and paid the money for them then and there ; paid for 
 them by a circular note payable at any of the money- 
 changers in Paris ; took the documents, and they did not 
 even then take the precaution of seeing, so unlimited w^as 
 their faith in Pigott, or for some other reason which I 
 might guess, did not tidvc the precaution of seeing 
 whether there was any such person below at all. And 
 with this prize they returned to London. That prize 
 constitutes the first batch of tlie letters. No inquiry 
 was made on the subject, which one would have thought 
 they might easily have made with the view of localising 
 the apartment in which Byrne or Brennan — Byrne, I 
 think, was the name given — in which he w^as supposed 
 to have resided. No inquiry for fixing the locality, to 
 ascertain whether any such black bag or anything of 
 the kind had been left behind ; not the commonest pre- 
 caution, not the very commonest precaution, at this 
 stage, taken to inquire whether any part of the story of 
 Pin-ott was true. And then follows the account, or then 
 was given the account that Pigott deposed to, of the 
 way in which he immediately got possession of the 
 letters. Taken to a room annexcid to a restaurant in a 
 street near the Place Madeline, 1 think he said, taken 
 
x\i JIIS7VRV OF THE FORGED LETTERS 543 
 
 into this room of this pul)lic restaurant, and there he is 
 sworn on liis knees in the presence of six or seven 
 peo])le, tlie names of none of wliom did lie know, and 
 none of wlioni he had ever seen before, and who, accord- 
 ing to his account, lie was destined to see once again, 
 and in the same place, upon his bended knees he was 
 sworn never to reveal the source from which he obtained 
 those letters. 
 
 I hit the form of the oath which he was called upon 
 to take was certainly of a most peculiar kind ; it was 
 s[)ecially directed to the point of a judicial inquiry; 
 l)ecause the oath was that he was especially not to 
 reveal the source, from which those letters came, if 
 examined in a court of justice ! Was such an incredible 
 stoiy ever told in a court of justice before? 
 
 J\I}^ liords, this is as far as it is necessary to trouble 
 you with the story of the first batch. 
 
 Your Lordships know the letters com})riscd in the 
 iirst batch. They are, the facsimile letter, one letter 
 (hated Tuesday, a second letter dated Tuesday, a third 
 letter dated Tuesday, and one on the 9th January 1882, 
 beo'inninn; — " What are these fellows waiti no- for" — all 
 five l)eing Mr. Parnell's. And also six letters purport- 
 ing to be Mr. Patrick Egaii's ; letters of the 18th June 
 1881, 8th March 1882, 11th March 1882, Tuesday, 
 24t]i February 1881, and the lOtli June 1881. But 
 accompanying them, my Lords, was what I must call a 
 lot of rubbish, wdiich 1 should think ought to have still 
 more strongly suggested doubt to the minds of rational 
 men who were anxious to avoid being deceived, esj)eci- 
 ally as they were making grave imputation upon the 
 characters of others. And what was this rubbish? 
 Twenty, thirty, or foi'ty, i do not know the numljer, of 
 clippings of sheets of paper, with the same heading of 
 
544 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxr 
 
 the House of Commons upon tlicm ; perfectly geiuiiiic, 
 1 doubt not. Probably the clippings from lettei.s 
 written in answer to the numerous begging petitions 
 which this poor creature was apparently in the habit of 
 sending broadcast. But surely to men who did not 
 desire to be blinded, who did not desire to be deceived, 
 this circumstance amongst others ought to have 
 suooested to them the need, in common fairness, or for 
 their own protection, if they desired to avoid being- 
 imposed upon, of some further examination, but there 
 was none. 
 Second ^1^^ stoiy of tlic sccoud batcli was this. He was 
 
 Batch. walking ak)no: the boulevards on the second occasion also ; 
 and this time he was accosted by a person who bore the 
 name of l^oni lirown. Tom Brown also was a stranger 
 
 o 
 
 to him. He had never heard of the man ; aj^parently 
 never heard of the name before. Who Tom Thrown 
 Avas, who he said he was, what connection he had with 
 any organisation, secret or open, in no way a])p(;ars. 
 All he told us was that he was introduced to him by 
 some one whom he called Hayes. No inquiry. Again 
 the solemn farce gone through of recital by Pigott about 
 his being introduced to the same room of the same cafe 
 or restaurant ; sworn in the same mysterious way, to 
 the same mysterious eftect ; strange to say, in the 
 presence of the same parties, although there was no 
 connection shown, or suggested, as far as I can recall, 
 between the origin of the first batcli and the second, 
 rj,,,j^^^ My Lords, the third batch I will not trouble you by 
 
 liat.h. referring to. Those two letters are unimportant for any 
 purpose in the case. They are the forgery of a letter of 
 Mr. Davitt's, and the forgery of a letter of ]\Ir. O'Kelly. 
 They were never published, and were only discovered at 
 a late period of the case. But there was one circum- 
 
XXI PIGOTTS EVIDENCE 545 
 
 sta.iiCG ill connection with them — I do not wish to give 
 nndiie importance to it — but it was obviously, as your 
 Lordships will see, of great importance to those who 
 had to meet this serious charge, that they should kuow^ 
 fully and completely all the documents which came 
 from this same source, in order that by reference to the 
 genuineness of some, tlicy might be able to test the 
 want of genuineness of others ; and certainly with that 
 view, and in that connection, the discovery of those last 
 two letters was of some consequence. As I say, I do not 
 wish to make unnecessary reflection, I do not wish to 
 attach undue importance to a question of the kind. As 
 a matter of fact your Lord.ships will recollect they were 
 liidden in a box — when I say hidden in a box, put in a 
 1)0X — with a number of other documents ; and it was 
 only after your Lordshij)S, or the able secretary who 
 assists your Lordships' commission, had examined them 
 at a very considerably advanced period of this inquiry, 
 that they were discovei'cd by the accused, and found to 
 be forged. They too proceeded from the hand of Richard 
 rigott. 
 
 Now, my Lords, what was the account Pigott gave rigott m 
 of himself? I will take iiis account as it is told by 
 himself, and I will take it in no very great detail. He 
 was the i)roprietor at one time of The Irishman ncws- 
 papei', and he continued to be its proprietor up to the 
 year 1881, and in that year he sold it to Mr. Parnell 
 and some of his colleagues, together with another paper 
 wliicli he then possessed, called the Flag of Ireland. 
 
 My Lords, at that time an important correspondence Mr.Forster. 
 — important, I mean, with a view to the truth and 
 genuineness of these letters — occurred, and it was divided 
 into two branches. Corrrspondeuce between Mr. Egan 
 and ]\lr. Pigott with a view of negotiating terms of 
 
 2 N 
 
546 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 purchase ; and ultimately some letters between Mr. 
 Parnell and Mr. Pigott on the same subject. 'Jo that 
 correspondence I will refer a little later. Then, my 
 Lords, trying to follow out in the order of date, came 
 the correspondence, that remarkable correspondence, 
 with the late Mr. Forster, which began in Pigott's 
 attempt to obtain money and support from Mr, Forster 
 for attacking the popular leaders, in which he succeeded 
 in what cannot be doubted was his main object, namely, 
 in procuring by virulent statements no inconsiderable 
 sum of money from the private pocket of Mr. Forster. 
 And then, when he renewed liis attempts with the same 
 object of money, he palms upon Mr. Forster — he in- 
 vents, and your Lordships will find several other 
 instances of the same kind — he invents the story that 
 at certain mysterious interviews he has been oftered a 
 sum of money for disclosing his correspondence with 
 Mr. Forster, and, perhaps, looking to the private 
 character of that correspondence, he meant to convey, 
 supposing that Mr. Forster had not copies of it, he 
 meant to convey there might be said to be something 
 compromising in that correspondence with reference to 
 Mr. Forster, of which, of course, there was not the 
 shadow of a shade of ground. Then, failing success by 
 misrepresentation and false pretence, he turns round 
 and attacks the man who, undoubtedly from his kindly 
 nature, meant to be his benefactor. 
 Archbishop Then, my Lords, we have the next incident ; the 
 illustrative incident of his earliest communication with 
 Archbishop Walsh. He writes, appealing to Archl)ishop 
 Walsh anonymously. The document is before your 
 Lordships, and you will judge whether it was his or 
 not — I think no one can doubt it was his — in which lie 
 suggests, through this anonymous form of communica- 
 
XXI PlGOTrS EVIDENCE 547 
 
 tion, tliat a clergyman, his own neighbour at Kingstown 
 — a Protestant clergyman, lie, Pigott, being a professing 
 Catholic — is seeking to take advantage of his penury to 
 proselytise his (Pigott's) children, a statement for which 
 he told you there was no foundation whatever in fact. 
 But in order to get money he invents the statement ; he 
 invents the nlloged attempt at proselytism, and forwards 
 it nnonymously, to excite the sympathy and to ensure 
 the assistance of the Archbishop of Dublin. 
 
 His next adventure in this line is his correspondence Mr. Egan. 
 Avith ]Mr. Egan, in reference to certain disclosures wdiich 
 he is asked to make, again illustrative of the man and 
 of his cnrcer. He says two gentlemen have called on 
 him at Kingstown. 
 
 "They did not give me their names. I did not know Avho tliey 
 ■\vcT"e ; but they asked nic wonld I publi.sh a statement in relation 
 to the ;ill'airs of the Land Tjcngnc, and cspcciall}' in relation to the 
 disposition of the funds of the Land League, a statement supposed 
 to reflect on the lionesty of those dealing with tho.se funds." 
 
 In other words, to suggest that funds that had been 
 subscribed for certain public purposes had been applied 
 to private pu]-poses, and to the support of certain 
 members of Parliament. He adds : — 
 
 "I am not asked to endorse the truth of this statement. Nay, 
 my mysterious visitors have given me permission to challenge, to 
 contradict, to deny the statements — mone}'^ is an object with me, 
 and they offer me £500 if I will make the required publication." 
 
 And then in answer to that, Patrick Egan writes a 
 letter, the one on the basis of which, or in view of which, 
 the fabrication of part of this correspondence by Pigott 
 was made. And on that occasion your Lordships will 
 lecollect — it is also in court — he enclosed a communi- 
 c;ili(»ii, which is su[)p()Med to be a communication handed 
 to liim in wi'iting, conveying a request as to the 
 
548 HIS TORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 cliaracter of the publication which is desired — forgery 
 No. 2 upon his own confession, for I tliink no one who 
 heard his story (I am sure I need not hdjour the point) can 
 doubt that that was an absolute and complete invention. 
 Then comes, my Lord, what is still more extra- 
 ordinary, the still more important correspondence with 
 Dr. Walsh, the Archbishop of Dublin. 
 
 Your Lordships recollect that the publication of 
 Archbishop thesc Ubcls bco-au in the month of ]\Iarch 1887. 1 tliink 
 
 Walsli. in 1 • Ti/r 1 -1 
 
 the first early in March 1887. At that time he renews 
 his correspondence with Archbishop AValsh. It is all in 
 evidence. Your Lordships would not desire I should 
 trouble you with going through it again. I must remind 
 your Lordships however, of its tenor and its effect. That 
 correspondence was, as I think you will conceive rightly, 
 although marked a private correspondence, rightly 
 forwarded Ijy Archbishop Walsh for the elucidation of 
 truth, not to Mr. Parnell or his solicitor, but to me and 
 me alone, and I retained it in my own possession, never 
 having parted with it, but using it for the purpose for 
 which it was sent to me, namely, the elucidation of truth 
 in this matter. 
 
 That correspondence in effect is this : — A dastardly 
 attempt is going to be made in the columns of The 
 Times newspaper to blast the reputation and to drive 
 from public life Mr. Parnell, and some of his colleagues. 
 I do not know anything about it myself, but accident 
 has put me in possession of the story ; and 1 am able to 
 put your Lordship in possessi(jii of information which 
 will enable that design to be frustrated. 
 
 The Archbishop replies : — There is no use in making 
 these general statements. If you have any information 
 of importance to give, say what it is. I will otherwise 
 be no party to it. I am not on terms with ]\Ir. Parnell 
 
XXI PIGOTrS EVIDENCE 549 
 
 sufficiently intimate to venture to make a communica- 
 tion to liim, but if you have any statement in the 
 interests of justice to make, make it ; and state who is 
 the person — wlio is tlie fiibricator in this matter. 
 
 Then, my Lords, a number of letters follow which 
 convey clearly and unmistakably that he knows a 
 means to convince tlie archbishop that these letters are 
 f«)ro;crics, 1)ut lie disclaims that he is the fabricator, or 
 has had anything to do with the fabrication ; and then 
 he writes two letters in particular, which appear to 
 go into the matter in greater detail than any of the 
 others, and he asks the archbishop to return those 
 two letters, which the archbishop accordingly does. 
 Probably if those had been forthcoming the story would 
 be even more complete than it is at the present state 
 of the evidence. 
 
 My Lords, I really do not stop to argue this question. 
 I can hardly conceive that there are minds so constituted 
 ns to entertain any doul)t, in view of all the ante- 
 cedents, in view of the story he told in the box on his 
 examination-in-chief, and upon cross-examination, who 
 cm entertain even the faintest, lingering doubt that 
 from beginning to end Pigott was the undoubted forger 
 of every one of those letters. 
 
 But we will pursue the story. On the 25tli of 
 October, at his own request, or in pursuance of his own 
 request, he has an interview, at Avhich Mr. Parncll, 
 J\Ir. Labouchere, and Mr. George Lewis were present. 
 Your Lordships will recollect how that request came 
 to be conveyed. lie was subpoenaed by Mr. George 
 Lewis, and in answer to that subpoena he writes to know 
 what ari-angements are to be made for paying him, and 
 what he is to get for his loss of time and so forth, to 
 whi(;h he acts a (Mirt answer to the effect that he will 
 
S50 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS 
 
 TnUh. 
 
 lie told when his attendance is required, and there will 
 be forwarded to him by Mr. George Lewis's agent the 
 proper conduct money when his attendance is required. 
 Then he follows that up by a letter to Mr. I^abou- 
 cliere, in which he expresses the wish or the desire to 
 meet Mr. Parnell and Mr. Justin IM'Carthy, 
 Pigottand But before that, my Lords, a very important fact 
 transpired. First of all, this. On the publication of 
 that facsimile letter, which occurred in April, there 
 immediately appeared, in, I think, the very next issue — 
 I had the number here and I could have referred your 
 Lordships to the exact number, but it has apparently 
 for the time been mislaid — there appeared in the 
 columns of Truth this statement : No one had seen, 
 Mr. Parnell had not seen, the original of the facsimile 
 letter, but it was suo'o-ested that either of two thinos 
 might be true — either that, looking to the position of Mr. 
 Parnell's signature, which was at the top of one of the 
 pages, his genuine signature might have been innocently 
 placed there, the other part of the letter being after- 
 wards written, or the alternative suggestion was that 
 the whole thing was a forgery. These two theories, or 
 explanations, or suggestions appeared immediately after 
 the publication of the facsimile letter, and as regards 
 the second of those theories, namely, that it was a 
 forgery, the name of Eichard Pigott was mentioned as 
 the probable author of that forgery. 
 
 Later, when in the course of the trial of O'Donnell 
 V. Walter, the Attorney-General had opened the other 
 letters, for, up to that time, your Lordships will under- 
 stand that the only letter which had been published 
 was the facsimile letter, the attention, of course, of 
 the whole world was drawn to the other letters ; and 
 then there arrived in this country, in the circumstances 
 
XXI P/GOrrS CONFESSION 551 
 
 wliicli your Lordships heard deposed to hy Mr. Labou- 
 cherc in the box, this important corrcspoudeuce between 
 Eo;aii and Pigott — Pigott's original letters and Mr. 
 Egan's replies on the back of them, the correctness of 
 which, in substance, Pigott acknowledged. 
 
 I am reminded, and of course your Lordships will 
 recoHect, tliat one of those genuine letters from Egan to 
 Pigott had been pul)]is]icd in the Frcemans Journal as 
 far l)ack as Deceml)er 1881. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I follow out the story of this man. pigott's 
 lie came into the box and was, I think, for part of one 
 day and the whole of another day cross-examined by 
 me, and on Friday, the 22d of February, he appeared 
 for the last time in the witness-box. On the Saturday, 
 sometliing important occurred. lie went to Mr. Labou- 
 cherc again, professing to desire to make a clean breast 
 of the matter. JMr. Labouchere, as he told your Lord- 
 si dps, declined the interview, unless in the presence of 
 some third person, and as a neighbour accessible, he 
 sent for M]-. Sala. And then, upon the initiation of 
 Pigott, that confession your Lordships have heard of 
 was taken down, in which he in effect denies the story 
 he had told on liis oath in the box, and confesses that 
 all these letters were forgeries, and were forged by him. 
 
 J\ly Lords, something else follows upon this. That 
 confession is (communicated by ]\lr. Labouchere to Mr. 
 George Lewis. He takes a copy of it. He gets it, I 
 think, on Saturday night or Sunday morning, and on 
 Mon<lny morning sends it back to Pigott in a letter 
 which has been read. 
 
 Meanwhile Pigott had been seeing somebody else. 
 (Jne of your Lordships expressed surprise that we should 
 have expected to see Pigott again in the box after his 
 confession made to Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Sala. I was 
 
and Pifiott. 
 
 552 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 a little surprised at the moment, l)ut I confess np(jn 
 reflection I think that was a natural expression of tlie 
 learned judge who made it, but I had in my mind the 
 fact that he had confessed on the 25th of October to 
 these very forgeries, and yet he appeared in that box 
 on two or three occasions afterwards. But, my Lords, 
 if it should not be a matter of surprise to us that he did 
 not reappear on the following Tuesday, what was the state 
 of knowledge and information wliich was possessed l)y 
 those representing The Times ? AVe now know what 
 siiaunon happened. Mr. Shannon sees him on the Saturday, I 
 think, or on the Sunday, I forget which, after he liad 
 made his full written confession and signed it in the 
 presence of Mr. Labouchere and Mr. Sala. Mr. Shannon, 
 in view of, and with the knowledge that he had con- 
 fessed to the untrutli of his story in the box, is a party to 
 his making a fresh sworn declaration, reaffirming his 
 evidence in part only, as he had given it in the box ; 
 and then follows this extraordinary communication in 
 which to Shannon he writes as a matter of course when 
 he gets to Paris : — " Herein 1 send you "—I do not stop 
 to refer to the letter— these are almost the very words, 
 certainly their tenor — "I herein send you enclosed, 
 which came to me just as I was leaving "—that is the 
 written and signed confession. Did Shannon know that 
 he was leaving ? He was their witness ; he was not 
 ours. They had two policemen, if not in charge of him, 
 looking after him. That was the expression used — did 
 Mr. Shannon, or did he not, convey to Mr. Soames that 
 on the Sunday he had thought it necessary to make 
 arrangements for the taking of that declaration? Did 
 he on Monday tell him that he had made that declara- 
 tion, and if blame for this man's disappearance and, it 
 may be, for his wretched death, lies anywhere, where 
 
PIGOTTS FLIGHT 553 
 
 does it truly and justly lie ? Why were no steps taken 
 to ensure his continued attendance in the witness-box, 
 and how comes it that he is on these terms to write to 
 Shannon \ — •" I received the enclosed (which I send you) 
 just as I was leaving " — and how comes it that he sends 
 tliat last communication of all, which I think has not 
 yet l)cen produced in your Lordships' court, which I 
 have before called for, and which I lio2)e will presently 
 be produced — the telegram from Madrid, the last com- 
 niunicntion he made to Shannon, begging that there 
 may ))c sent to him — I do not want to do injustice to 
 any one in the wording of a telegram, but it was to this 
 efiect — begging that there might be sent to him what 
 " you promised Mr. Soanies would send," or " what you 
 promised/' And, my Lords, that there was an under- 
 standing with Shannon, that Shannon knew he had 
 gone, thnt Shannon knew he had gone to Spain, because, 
 probaljly, Spain was a place it was believed the extra- 
 dition treaties might not extend to, is shown by the fact 
 that lie telegraphed in a name which w^ould not be 
 known to anybody who had not been j^arty to his using 
 it, telegraphed in an assumed name. That is the story. 
 
 (The President) My recollection is that he says : 
 '' Communicate by the name that I give." 
 
 (The Attorney-General) Yes. 
 
 (The President) I think you are mistaken. Sir Charles. 
 
 (Sir C. Russell) No, he had communicated in an 
 assumed name, my Lord ; that is my point ; and even 
 if it 1)0 as your Lordship suggests, how comes it that 
 Pigott, a fugitive from justice, is confiding his assumed 
 name to Mr. Shannon ? 
 
 (The President) I thought you were suggesting that 
 Mr. Shannon must have known he was going there 
 under an assumed name. 
 
554 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 (Sir C. Russell) My Lord, I am. I agree with your 
 Lordship. 
 
 (The President) I was pointing out that my recol- 
 lection of it is, that he says, " Communicate with me 
 by this name." 
 
 (Sir 0. Russell) My Lord, I will say not your Lord- 
 ship is not right, but my recollection is not so. ]\Iy 
 own recollection is, that the telegram purported to come 
 from Roland Ponsonby. 
 
 (The President) Perhaps so. 
 
 (Sir C. Russell) That being the assumed name, but 
 I do not dwell further upon it. The point I am making 
 is this : that the terms of that letter wliich he writes, 
 enclosing? the original si^^^ned confession which Mr. Lewis 
 had meanwhile returned to him, shows that Shannon 
 was a party, in point of knowledge, to his leaving, 
 because in that same letter in which he says, " Just as I 
 was leaving I received the enclosed," he adds, " I will 
 write to you soon again." Your Lordships will recollect 
 the passage in the letter, because that letter has been 
 produced. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I leave that matter. The force of 
 my contention does not depend upon minute criticisms 
 of either the letter or the telegram. I will only observe, 
 in passing, that it is difficult to see how anybody coukl 
 identify Roland Ponsonby, which was the name used in 
 the telegram, with Richard Pigott, unless tlicre had 
 been some precognition on the part of the recipient of 
 the telegram that that was the name aG;reed to be used, 
 or going to be used. 
 Mr Mac ^^^ Lords, I rctum to the consideration very briefly 
 
 donaid's of thcsc Icttcrs tlicmselves. To take the first of these, I 
 
 Opinion. 
 
 mean the first in point of publication. Mr. Macdonald 
 thought that these letters, on the face of them, were the 
 
XXI HOW THEY WERE MANUFACTURED 555 
 
 most natural letters to write under tlic circumstances. 
 Mr. Macdonald's account in this matter was certainly a 
 most interesting as well as a most remarkable one. His 
 attention is called to tlic fact of the body of the letter 
 bcimx written in one hand and the signature in another. 
 
 o o 
 
 He suggests that, in his opinion, the body is in the 
 handwriting of Mr. Campl>ell, Mr. Parnell's secretary, 
 but that Mr. Campbell sought to disguise his hand- 
 writing in the body of the letter. He adds : — 
 
 I do not suggest Mr. Parnell's signature is at all 
 disguised ; that is, naturally, his genuine signature. — 
 Were there any envelopes with these letters ? — No, 
 there were not. Did it strike you as at all singular that 
 the body of the letter should l)e written in a disguised 
 handwriting, and that a genuine undisguised signature 
 sliould be put to it? — No, not at all (said Mr. Mac- 
 doiudd), it is exactly what the Irish leaders do. It is 
 exactly what I, if I were a conspirator myself, should 
 do. I should have the body of the letter in another 
 handwriting, I should have the indorsement of the letter 
 written in one handwritiug, I should have the signature 
 of the envclo})e in another handwriting, and I should 
 destroy the envelope. 
 
 IIow the sender of the letter was to go through all 
 that operation, especially destroying the envelope, passes 
 comprehension. My Lords, though this may have its 
 ludicrous side, it points to a very serious, a very extra- 
 ordinary, a very lamentaljle state of mind. On Mr. 
 JNIacdon aid's own confession he was absolutely ready to 
 believe anything that could be said in defamation of 
 Mr. I'arnell and of Mr. Parnell's colleagues. He was 
 ready to swnllow wholesale, in spite of any improba- 
 bility, any imputation made upon them. My Lords, 
 that is the key to a great deal of this story. It is the 
 
556 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 key to the whole fabric of calumny which hns lifted up 
 its head under the name of " Parnelli.sm and Crime;" 
 a want of common charity, a want of common cai-e, a 
 neglect almost criminal, an attitude of mind which 
 endorses, which accepts without question, the gravest 
 accusations against political opponents. 
 
 What is the language of this letter '\ "I am not sur- 
 prised at your friend's anger." I need not trouble your 
 Lordships with reading it. And then we have this 
 interesting instance of the ars celare artem, which a 
 man of the wretched antecedents of Pigott knew well 
 how to apply; what The Times in one of its articles 
 calls the accidental corroboration of three words being 
 crossed out — the accidental corroboration of the name 
 being written on one side of the sheet, which no forger, 
 they suggest, would resort to ; and, last of all, the fact 
 that it being known that Mr. Parnell leads a solitary 
 life and does not mix generally with his colleagues, the 
 crowning item of corroboration in this letter, which 
 found ready acceptance in the mind of Mr. Macdonald, 
 was the fact that IMr. Parnell desired that his address 
 should not be known. In words smacking a little of 
 transpontine melodrama : — 
 
 " Let not my address be known." 
 
 Betray not the secret haunt in which 1 am plotting 
 
 my conspiracies ! What is the next ? 
 
 9//i January 1882. 
 
 " Dear E. — What are these fellows waiting for 1 This inaction 
 is inexcusable. Our best men are in prison, and nothing is being 
 done. Let there be an end of this hesitency. Prompt action is 
 called for. You undertook to make it hot for old Forster and Co. 
 Let us have some evidence of your power to do so. — Yours, very 
 truly, Charles S. Parnell." 
 
 That again found ready acceptance from Mr. JMac- 
 
XXI HOIV THEY WERE FORGED 557 
 
 (If)iiald and those wliom he consulted iii this matter. 
 Tlicii the others are — I do not dwell, my Lords, upon 
 tlie point of " liesitency," it is already apjjreciated by 
 your Lordships. I might, if it was worth calling your 
 liordsliips' attention to, draw attention to the spelling 
 in some other respects, as, for instance, the spelling of 
 tlic word " likelihood" as "likelchood," in tlie letter of 
 " Tuesday," wliicli corresponds exactly with genuine 
 letters of Pigott's, which we have to produce to your 
 fiordsliips, nnd nlso the corresj^onding misspelling in the 
 word " livelihood" in the genuine letters which corre- 
 sponds with the same mistake, with the use of the 
 second " e " in both words. I do not dwell upon these 
 small matters. If it were necessary, I could go further 
 mid point out to your Lordships several other points of 
 rescnil)lance, even down to tlie question of handwriting, 
 l)ut when your Lordships have before you, as you have 
 had, two or three specimens of what I must call, I think, 
 if not admitted, clearly proved, specimens of the way in 
 which he can ieimi handwritins: in the memorandum to 
 Archbishop Walsh alwut the alleged proselytism ; in the 
 memorandum to Egnn about the mysterious visits of 
 tlie strangers, and so forth, I need not dwell upon or 
 labour that point. 
 
 Then, as to Egan's letters, some considerations of 
 nnother and of a different kind apply. ]\Iy Lords, these 
 Egan letters were written — designedly written — to build 
 up the theory of complicity with the Phcenix Park 
 murders. Thus a good many of them, so far as they 
 appear, are innocent, but, of course, the object was to 
 show that the man who produced them was pretending 
 that he had access to many letters. 
 
 The next letter is addressed to James Carey, Esq., 
 purporting to be signed by Patrick Egan. 
 
558 HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 "I have by this post sent M. £200. He will give you what 
 you want. When will you undertake to get to work and give us 
 value for our money % — Faithfully yours, Patrick Egan. 
 
 "James Carey, Esq." 
 
 My Lords, two genuine letters of Egan's to Carey 
 have been produced relating to the time when Carey was 
 a candidate for some office in the Corporation of Du])lin, 
 and those letters are not addressed " Dear Sir," in this 
 fashion; they are addressed "Dear Carey," or "Dear 
 James," I think, is the expression in those letters ; hut 
 this letter was designed hy the introduction of the 
 reference to M., which the Attorney-General interpreted, 
 and rightly interpreted, to be intended to mean, "Mullet" 
 or " Mullets," two of the j^ersons who took part in the 
 Invincible conspiracy. 
 
 My Lords, I wish to draw attention — and this is the 
 last thing that I have to say in regard to these letters — to 
 the parallelism which is to be found between certain of 
 the genuine and certain of the forged letters. I think 
 you have already had a copy of these handed to you. I 
 will oidy trouble you by reference to two or three of 
 these. Now, here are the first, wliich I will compare. 
 Genuine letter : — 
 
 "Dear Sir — I am in receipt of your letter of the 16th inst, 
 and in reply should write to Mr. P. as you request, and ascertain 
 his views " (that is, in reference to the purchase of a paper). — 
 "Yours truly, P. Egan." 
 
 Forged letter 1881, the figures agreeing — " Dear Sir," 
 the words agreeing, " I am in receipt of yours " agreeing, 
 
 " instant " agreeing. " Mr. V , Mr. Parnell " agreeing, 
 
 " yours truly " agreeing. "P. Egan," of course, agreeing. 
 That is not the most remarkable, although it is remark- 
 able enough. 
 
 The next is the parallelism between the genuine 
 
now THEY WERE FORGED 559 
 
 letter of tlie 18tli June 1881 and the forged letter of the 
 18th June 1881. Tliis is remarkable — the forged 
 letter : — 
 
 " 18th June 1881. 
 " Dear Sir — Your letters of the 12tli and 15th inst. are duly 
 to hand, and 1 am also in receipt of communication from Mr. Parnell 
 informing me tliat he has acted on my suggestion, and accepted the 
 olVor made by B. You had better at once proceed to Dundalk, so 
 that there may bo no time lost." 
 
 Genuine letter, '' 18tli June 1881 " agreeing, "your 
 two letters of the 12th and 15th" agreeing, except that 
 it is 12tli and 13th, " are duly to hand " agreeing, and " I 
 am also in receipt of" agreeing, "communications from 
 Mr. rarnell " agreeing, " informing me that he is " 
 agreeing, " on my suggestion " agreeing, and " accepted 
 the ofter" also agreeing. 
 
 My Lords, really is not the conclusion clear as any- 
 thing can be that tliis wretched creature, wdth this 
 genuine letter before him, simply proceeded, in order 
 to earn tlie money wliich was temptingly placed before 
 his eager eyes, to use tliese genuine letters to manu- 
 facture those which we are now discussing ? My Lords, 
 these two letters tlia.t I am comparing w^ere in the 
 first batch, and the worthlessness of Pigott's partial 
 retractation of liis confession in this wretclied de- 
 claration which he made on the eve of his flight, and 
 made at the instance of Shannon, is thus clearly 
 .sliown ; tliat letter, tlie forgery of which nobody would 
 venture to doubt, is stated to be one of the genuine 
 ones. 
 
 The next parallelism is the forgery of the 11th of 
 March 1881 with the genuine letter of the 11th of March 
 1882. The forged letter beginning, "Dear Sir — As I 
 understand your letter which reached me to-day." The 
 
56o HISTORY OF THE FORGED LETTERS xxi 
 
 same date with an altered year 1881. " As I luiderstand " 
 agreeing, "your letter which " agreeing, " readied nie 
 to-day" agreeing; and then the sum of £500 in 
 the genuine letter as against £50 in the forged 
 letter. " Under circumstances " in the genuine 
 letter, " Under existing circumstances " in tlie forged 
 letter. 
 
 In Mr. Parnell's alleged letter of the 16th of June 
 1882 forged letter, 16th of June 1881 genuiue letter, 
 dates agreeing, with the alteration of the year to 1882. 
 " Dear Sir " agreeing. " In reply to yours of this date, I 
 am sure you will feel I shall always be anxious ; " in 
 the forged letter "I shall always be anxious," Lower 
 down, agreement of the phrase " in reference to con- 
 dition," and a immber of other similar words ; and in 
 another forged letter of the same date of the 16th of 
 June is introduced a still more remarkable phrase show- 
 ing the j)arallelism, namely, Pigott transfers from tliis 
 genuine letter of the 16th of June 1881 into the forged 
 letter of the 16tli of June 1882 the phrase, "I am sure 
 you will feel," so that in those two forged letters the 
 figures of the 16th June 1882, there are very few words 
 or phrases that are not to be found in the genuine ones ; 
 but, my Lords, I really will not pursue this point of the 
 case further. 
 
 Your Lordships know what followed on the disap- 
 pearance of this man — the wretched fate that came uj^on 
 him. There has been an al)Solute, total, hopeless collapse 
 of this part of the case, without which your Lordships 
 would not have been trouljled with this anxious, this 
 wearisome inquiry— the part of the case which repre- 
 sented a definite, distinct, clear issue, unmixed with 
 political complications or considerations, utterly, hope- 
 lessly, irretrievably broken down. 
 
7/0 1 J^ THEY WERE FORGED 561 
 
 All opportunity was thus ofFered to tlie advisers of 
 the prose(!iition for reconsidering their position. Their 
 evidence Imd then, so fur as evidence iij^on the general 
 case was ('oncerncd, })ractically come to an end. There 
 were sonic witnesses afterwards called of no serious 
 coiise(|ueiice. Surely they must have felt, surely the 
 experienced advisers who arc here appearing for the pro- 
 secution must have felt, that, upon the general case, their 
 charges had by their own extravagance broken down ; 
 that their proof, their attempted proof, if every word of 
 it was to be believed, had fallen miserably short of the 
 enormously grave accusations they had advanced. They 
 were then offered an opportunity, 1 will not say of 
 redeeming tlie prestige of their j^aper, l)iit they were 
 then offered an opportunity at least of showing that they 
 were not filling the role of rancorous, jicrtinacious o})po- 
 neiits in the prosecution of a political j)<^i'ty- 'J'bcy 
 might then at least have said — retiring so far as they 
 were concerned, and leaving your Lordships on your 
 own responsiljility to pursue this inquiry as you i)lease, 
 and as far as you please — they might have said: " AVe 
 have now l)roken down in this the most serious part of 
 the case "^ — for who can doul)t that it was? — "the rest 
 we retire from, and leave your Lordships to deal with." 
 Ikit no, tlie vials of infamy must be poured out upon 
 the heads of the Irish leaders and their party to the 
 very last drop, to the very dregs ; and so, in the face of 
 this collapse, they have persevered up to to-day upon 
 instructions — I doubt not, I am not suggesting that 
 they had free hands in the matter — pertinaciously per- 
 severed, and with no generous attempt made, with no 
 earnest eflbrt made to try, even at this stage, to do 
 imperfect justice to the men whom they have so foully 
 
 slandei-ed. 
 
 2 
 
XXII. 
 
 THE CHAEGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 My Lords, we liave endeavoured, as your Lordsliips 
 are aware, to lay Ijefore you in some metliodical 
 fashion the general evidence which has l)een adduced 
 on the part of the prosecution, and we have done 
 it with a view especially of calling the attention of 
 the court to such portions as seem to Ijc directed in 
 support of the allegations against individual members of 
 the Irish party or others expressly named. I have now, 
 my Lords, in view of the evidence, to ask your Lord- 
 ships to allow me to contrast with it, in its weak- 
 ness, in its generality, the specific, weighty and 
 grievous charges which are contained in the libels in 
 cpiestion. 
 
 AVe have endeavoured to condense those charges and 
 to collate them under nine heads. I will state these 
 charges first in language of my own, and then 1 will read 
 the passages in the libels which justify my brief allega- 
 tion of what the cliarf»:es are. 
 First My Lords, the first charge is this : That the Land 
 
 Leaguers deliberately based their movement on a scheme 
 of assassination and outrage. 
 
 That that is a correct statement of one serious charge 
 I proceed to justify. On page 197 of tlie l^lue Book you 
 will find this sentence : — 
 
 Charge. 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 563 
 
 " Murder still startles the casuist and the doctrinaire, and we 
 cliarge that the Land League chiefs based their movements on a 
 scheme of assassination, carefully calculated and coolly applied. Be 
 the ultimate goal of these men what it will, they are content to 
 march towards it in company with nuirderers. Murderers provide 
 their funds, murderers share their inmost councils, murderers have 
 gone forth from the League even to set their bloody work a-foot, 
 and have [U'esently returned to consult the constitutional leaders on 
 the advancement of the cause." 
 
 My Lords, I do not need to say one single word in 
 illustration of what that means. It means that Mr. 
 J\arnell, Mr. Davitt, Mr. Dillon, and the rest were 
 delil)crately parties to setting on foot schemes of assass- 
 ination, carefully calculated and applied, that the enactors 
 of tliose schemes went straight from the councils of the 
 Land League leaders to do their criminal work, and 
 I lien have })rcsently returned to sta,tc the result of their 
 action. 
 
 Therefore, my Lords, the charge from the first, in its 
 essence, in its marrow, has been, not a charge of con- 
 structive, moral or legal responsibility for the acts of 
 indis(^reet or wicked agents, it has been a deliberate 
 charge, that the leaders deliberately used outrage and 
 murder as the means l)y wliich their political aims were 
 to be attained. 
 
 My Lords, that view is carried out 1)y reference to 
 the Blue Book, at pages 193 and 194 :— 
 
 " There are plenty of authentic utterances fixing upon promin- 
 ent members of the Home Ivule party the guilt of direct incitement 
 Lo outrage and murder, just as there are declarations placing it be- 
 yoiul all doul)t that they are inspired by hatred of this country, aiid 
 l)y a determination to destroy the last link that keeps Ireland bound 
 to England." 
 
 Again, your Lordships will see it is not a charge of 
 indiscretion — of making speeches at times and under 
 
S64 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 circumstances of excitement which ouglit to liave sug- 
 gested to the minds of these leaders greater caution and 
 greater self-restraint ; but it is a cliarge that these 
 authentic utterances were uttered l)y the ITonie Rule 
 party intending them to Ijc, and that they were, direct 
 incitements to outrage and murder. 
 
 My Lords, this view is endorsed by the Attorney- 
 General in his opening of O'Donnell v. AValter, at 
 page 67, because, after referring to that passage, he 
 proceeds : — 
 
 " Tliat is a true comment and a true statement of what the 
 work of the organisation was, as I shall proceed to prove before you 
 iu the course of this case." 
 
 Again, my Lords, at pages of the Blue Book 194 
 and 195 :— 
 
 " Merely to have his revenge upon his countrymen for rejecting 
 his advice, and to prove his declaration, that ' all other busiutjss 
 shall he made impossible,' to be no idle threat, Mr. Gladstone and 
 his party are deliberately allying themselves with the paid agents 
 of an organisation whose ultimate aim is plunder, whose ultimate 
 sanction is murder, to paralyse the House of Commons, and to hand 
 Ireland over to social and financial ruin." 
 
 Mr. ]My Lords, as the name of that great man lias been 
 
 introduced, I will make a passing reference, and only a 
 passing reference. Your Lordships will have seen that 
 the miserable attempt was made in these libels to eke 
 out their charges by quotations from some words of that 
 eminent man and some of his former colleagues. My 
 Lords, of course it would be enough for me, in passing, 
 to say that your Lordships look not to sucli declarations, 
 but to the evidence which is produced before you ; that 
 this is not a case in which judgment is to be formed 
 upon utterances, even from so great men as those to 
 whom these utterances are attributed ; but I wish to 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 565 
 
 note, my Lords, tluit tliese former utterances are cited 
 by tlic 1 libellers at the veiy time tliey are denouncing 
 the policy of conciliation introduced by Mr. GLadstone, 
 tlic introduction of whidi policy is the best proof, the 
 strongest ])roof that couJd l)e given, that his later views 
 of th(^ Irisli question, and the attitude and conduct of 
 the Irish leaders in relation to that question, are, as he 
 l)elieves, founde<l on truer, juster, and more accurate 
 knowledge than any he liad previously possessed. 
 
 IMy Lords, I proceed to page 20G of tlie Blue Book, 
 which s[)caks — I am loath to read tliese passages at 
 greater length than is necessary — of how "the infernal 
 fabric rose like an exhalation to the sound of mur- 
 derous oratory;" how "assassins guarded it about, and 
 enforced the high decrees of the secret conclave within 
 l)y the bullet and the knife." 
 
 JMy Lords, by reference back to page 197 your 
 TiOrdshi[)S will see, as the passage proceeds, it refers to 
 thi'ee members of Parliament, who were then sitting in 
 Parliament, and were members of this conclave ; and 
 they there refer to Mr. ParncU, Mr. Thomas Sexton, and 
 lAlr. Arthur O'Connor. Then they proceed to point out, 
 as fugitives from the law, Boyton, against whom there 
 is no proof from lieginning to end of this case that I am 
 aware of, and I have, with the assistance of my friends, 
 carefully examined it ; Sheridan, against whom there is 
 no proof except that, which is no proof in point of 
 law, a. true bill was returned against him by the grand 
 jury of the city of Dublin, and the evidence of the man 
 Delaney ; Egan, against whom there is no proof of 
 wrongdoing up to the time he went to America, and no 
 })roof there except the statement of the man Beach or 
 Lc (*aron ; Brennan, against whom there is no proof at 
 all, except the statement of Delaney^ — ^proved by the 
 
566 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 dates to be false — that lie (Breiinun) was a party to the 
 Invincible conspiracy, Brennan having been in prison, as 
 I yesterday pointed ont to your Lordships, iVoni the 
 23d May 1881 to the 16th of June 1882— in other 
 words, nearly six months before the initiation of this 
 foul conspiracy, and kept in prison until one month after 
 the tragedy at Phoenix Park. 
 
 It then proceeds, at page 242 of the Blue Book : — 
 
 " The whole conspiracy, whether carried on by mealy-mouthed 
 gentlemen who sit at London dinner-tal)les, or by the fiends who 
 organise arson and murder, is one and iiulivisiljle." 
 
 At page 17, upon the second day of the sitting of 
 this Commission, the Attorney- General, following the 
 same line, said this : — 
 
 " They " (the leaders) " did not themselves go and personally 
 plan the outrages. They could not do it, because they had not the 
 time, and of course would not be connected Avith it directly ; but 
 there the men were doing it for them, and of that S3^stem they took 
 the advantage." 
 
 I do not know whether the Attorney-General meant 
 or thought that was a milder form of conveying tliis 
 grievous accusation ; I will only say that if it be a milder 
 form it is certainly a meaner form of conveying it, 
 because it is a statement that men did not do the tliino- 
 themselves, but sent creatures to do it for them, l)ecause 
 of course they would not be connected with it directly. 
 
 My Lords, those are the portions of the lil)els which 
 justify the first general charges made. 
 
 Now I would ask your Lordships to consider this. 
 I dealt with the letters yesterday. I felt when I was 
 doing so that I was indeed " flogging a dead horse ; " 
 but take away the letters, and where is the foundation 
 on which rests any part of these charges which I have 
 just now read ? 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 567 
 
 Where is the evidence wliich, if your Lordships were 
 siltiiipj in a criminnl court (for in truth this is a criminal 
 charge), and penal consequences of loss of life or 
 deprivation of liberty were to follow, your Lordships 
 would think lit even to he submitted to the considera- 
 tion of a jury on such a charge as this with which I am 
 now dealing ? 
 
 As to Le Caron's evidence, let me remind your Lord- LeCaron. 
 ships, when these Hbels were penned Le Caron or Beach 
 was, I presume, unknown to the agents of Hie. Times, for 
 I do not suggest, 1 d<) not mean to insinuate even, for if 
 1 meant to insinuate I should state it broadly, that, at 
 that time, Mr. Anderson was in confidential communica- 
 tion either with Mr. J\lacdonald or ]\lr. Houston. As I 
 understand, Beach or Le Caron is a kind of a Deus ex 
 viachina, perhaps JJiaholm ex macJiind would be the 
 1)etter expression, who comes forward disgusted, forsooth, 
 at the impotent and weak manner in which the case is 
 presented, who comes forward to save the prosecution 
 from utter ruin and collapse. 
 
 My Lords, his whole story is no evidence against Mr. 
 Parnell, except, in so far as you can place reliance, when 
 you have heard the story, upon the scope and character 
 of the interview which he alle2;es he had with Mr. rarnell 
 in ]\lay of 1881 ; and as I have alluded to this matter, 
 may 1, in passing, ()l>serve (I think I did yesterday 
 ol)serve — I may repeat it), that Le Caron docs not allege 
 that at the time of this interview he was introduced or 
 mentioned in any sens(^ as connected with any secret or 
 unconstitutional organisation ? nay, further, that he does 
 not allege that at that time the secret organisation with 
 which he was connected was, if it ever was as such, 
 wliich 1 greatly doubt, in any way committed to a policy 
 of dynamite and outrage. 
 
568 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 Cliarge. 
 
 Lastly, T have endeavoured to show your Lordships, 
 and I hope I have succeeded, that the whole current of 
 his communications to this countiy are inconsistent with 
 the story, in its main and essential features, which he 
 desires to convey. 
 Second The second charge is this : Tlidt the leaders, \nj tlielr 
 
 sj^eeches and those of their subordinates, dii-evthj incited 
 the 2^(i02)le to outrage, and took no step hij speech or act 
 to preiient, to stop, or to condemn tJie outrages. 
 
 That, your Lordships will understand, is my language 
 in collating- this second oeneral head of charofcs. 
 
 Now for my justification for jnitting it in this form. 
 At page 73 of the Blue Book your Lordships will find 
 the Attorney-General says :— 
 
 " On the one side I shall put before you affirmative evidence of 
 the infamous S2)eeches " (directly inciting to outrage, arson, etc.) 
 "that were being made by many of tiiese men, sometimes Ijy the 
 leaders themselves, at other times in their presence ; and on not one 
 single occasion do Ave find the slightest speech or one single expres- 
 sion directed to diverting the minds of the people from outrage, to 
 diverting them from the acts which certainly followed, and which, 
 to the knowledge of these men, followed." 
 
 And again, on page 74 : — 
 
 " During the whole period of these 3'ears there is not, so far as 
 I know, one solitary speech amongst the tliousands delivered in wdiich 
 any one of these men deprecated the outrages that were undoubt- 
 edly going on." 
 
 My Lords, again, in the opening of this Commission, 
 at page 13, the Attorney-General says : — 
 
 " They, with scarcely an exce})tion, never denounced these out- 
 rages or took any steps to put an end to that wdiieh was, if I am 
 correctly instructed, one of the most cruel tyrannies that ever existed 
 in any country or in the history of the world. Many of these men, 
 whose names are included in these particulars, could and must have 
 known that sums of money w^ere lieing ])aid, not in an exceptional 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 569 
 
 instaiico, but over a long jx'iiod of time, to persons Avho wei'e en- 
 gaged in canying out acts of violence, and the crimes to wliich I 
 have referred." 
 
 Tlioii at piigc 4G ]ie makes the furtlicr statement, 
 wliicli lie afterwards indeed qualified, l)y saying that he 
 believed it would be possible, to say that in one or two 
 s[)eee]ies Ihei'e was something like reference to, he could 
 not call it eoJideumai-ion of crime. At page 4G he 
 says :— 
 
 "No single stej) is taken to denounce the crime or those guilty 
 of aiij- of those outrages." 
 
 I would only remind your Lordshijis in passing Deimncia- 
 what the evidence is the other way : beginning with the crime, 
 circular, I think, of December 1880, followed by another 
 circular, there were 30 speeches, I think, of Mr. Davitt 
 immediately aft(3r that circular of iJecember, and con- 
 tinu(^d uj) to the time of his arrest in February 1881, 
 and sj)eeclies by others which I have here, but will not 
 troul)le your Lordslii]>s l)y referring to — I have referred 
 t() them before — dealiug with this very subject of con- 
 demnation, a collection of evidence that I, certainly taking 
 an interest as I do in Irish politics, did not know of the 
 existence of to the same extent, and I have no doubt that 
 many others who depend upon exclusively English sources 
 of inforination were in the same position. But further, 
 there is tlie evidence called for The Times, the evidence 
 of the reporter (I thiuk his name was O'jMalley), who 
 spoke of attending and reporting 200 Land League meet- 
 ings, and who told your Lordships that with hardly an 
 exce}»tion, I think his expression was " generally," at 
 those meetings there was an appeal to the people to 
 abstain from crime, and a denunciation of crime by the 
 chairman or clergyman, or some of the prominent speakers, 
 at each of these meetings. The other constable, who was 
 
570 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 enlarge. 
 
 a shorthand reporter (I think there were only two so 
 described), was a man called Irwin, called very early in 
 the course of the case, who gave evidence to a similar 
 effect. So much for the second charixe. 
 Tiiird The third charge is : That if at any time any of the 
 
 leaders have verhally condemned or discouraged out- 
 rage and crime, their language ivas insincere and 
 hypocritical. 
 
 In connection with the second charge there is a 
 passage I did wish to read; it is on page 31G of the 
 Attorney-General's opening, in connection with the pas- 
 sage which I have already read. It is this, after stating 
 no attempts were made to discourage outrage, he proceeds 
 to say : — 
 
 " I also ask your Lordships to draw the conclusion that it \vas a 
 system and not an accidental effusion of acts of violence by an}' 
 agents who were beyoml the control of the central body ; it was an 
 organised conspiracy ; " that is to say, an organised conspiracy for 
 acts of violence and outrage. 
 
 On page 104 of the Blue Book the libel proceeds : — 
 
 "It may well be that at certain moments the murder of land- 
 lords and tenants is honestly discouraged by the League, and the 
 gentlemen who do its work in the House of Commons. . . . These 
 tasks must be made as easy for them as possilile." (I think that 
 must be tlieir tasks.) " Hence nuu'dcr is verbally discouraged, and 
 Mr. Parnell judiciously drops the inspiriting language he is accus- 
 tomed to address to his brother- conspirators when dollars are 
 required." 
 
 So as to Mr. Michael Davitt, at page 208 :— 
 
 " On this occasion Davitt repudiated outrage or assassination as 
 a means of helping Ireland." (Now, his hypocrisy.) "Ten days 
 later he met the leaders of the Assassination Party in conference at 
 Astor House. On Mr. Davitt's motion they resolved to form an 
 Ixish confederation, with Mr. Parnell's assistance." 
 
 And so, my Lords, in the opening of this Commission 
 
rHE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 571 
 
 tlie Attorney-General, making a similar reference to ]\Ir. 
 Parncll, sought to sustain and to support that reference 
 with reixard to Mr. Parnell's conduct on the occasion of 
 the denunciatory manifesto following the Phoenix Park 
 murders, and accordingly the Attorney-General, at page 
 171, is instructed to say: — 
 
 "It will bo proved before you, by Captain O'Shea, that Mr. 
 rarncll ol)jectcd to sign that document, and only signed it under 
 the necessities of the case, and objected to its terms." 
 
 ]\ly Lords, Captain O'Shea was called into the box, 
 and Captain O'Shea, as your Lordships will recollect, said 
 that was Jiot true, and expressed, as every other witness 
 who liad any knowledge of that matter, and others will 
 ])e called before your Lordships, the state of absolute 
 [)rostration in which J\]r. Parnell and his immediate col- 
 leagues were at the news of that dastardly blow, not 
 merely at the lives of two men, but at the policy that 
 the Irish leaders represented. And as I have mentioned 
 Captain O'Shea's name, let me remind your Lordships of 
 wliat he said of Mr. Parnell's attitude in relation to it. 
 At page 400 he is asked : — 
 
 "Do you l)clicve these men were opposed to his policy? (A.) 
 Of course, if his policy was not dynamite, and they came over with 
 dynamite, of course they Avere opposed to his policy. (Q.) And you 
 believe he was so opposed ? (A.) Tha,t Mr. Parnell was opposed to 
 dynamite, yes, most certainly, as I have said. (Q.) And to outrage ? 
 (A.) And to outrage. (Q.) You were perfectly confident that he 
 had a sincere desire to follow out this agitation on constitutional 
 lines % (A.) Certainly. I can go even further if it is any advantage 
 to you." 
 
 And then a little later he makes a reference to the 
 forged letters, as to which he says they came upon him 
 as a startling surprise and revelation. 
 
 ^ly Lords, the fourth charge is this: That no other ch^ygL 
 
 Fourtli 
 
572 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS xxii 
 
 cause has been, or could he, suggested for the crime in 
 Ireland from and after 1879 excejU the agitation of 
 the Land League and the speeches of its leado's. 
 
 At page 73 of the Blue Book this passage occurs in 
 tlie Attorn ey-General's speech : — 
 
 "The outrages numbered Hterally thousands, and tlierc is every 
 reason to believe that tliey can only be traced to the Land League 
 agitation." 
 
 At page 82 of O'Donnell v. Walter there is this : — 
 
 "No apparent cause of any sort or kind has ever l^een suggested, 
 or can ever 1)0 suggested, with all the ingenuity of my learned 
 friend and those who assist him, for this extraordinary outburst of 
 crime, excepting the agitation of the Land League, whieli had been 
 started in the autumn of 1879, and continued througliout the whole 
 of the years 1880 and 1881." 
 
 My Lords, in view of the argument, the historical 
 
 argument, with which I have been obliged to trouble 
 
 your Lordships at very considerable length, do I need 
 
 to make an answer to that charge ? I low ini})erl"e(*.tly 
 
 itucuneut tlic Attomey-Ceiieral must have l)een instructed wlien 
 
 1111^^^'' these statements were made ! I have shown your Lord- 
 
 Griiiir^'^' ships how, with recurring distress, there was recurrent 
 
 crime always springing from the same causes, the hapless 
 
 condition of the actual tillers of the soil in Ireland in 
 
 relation to those who had the proprietary rights in the soil. 
 
 Fifth My Lords, the fifth charge is this: That tJte funds 
 
 of the Land League ivere habitually used to pay for 
 
 outrage, and ivere used to procure the escape from j ustice 
 
 of criminals. 
 
 At pages 154 and 253 of the Blue Book (the latter 
 reference being a reference by the Attorney -General) 
 there is this : — .... 
 
 " But the fact is clear, however it be accounted for, that several 
 months after he resigned the treasurership, he (Egan) had funds in 
 
 C'liarge. 
 
THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 573 
 
 band to enable his fellow-criminals in the Pho3nix Park murder 
 j)lot to oscaj)c to America." 
 
 I have ali'catly sliowii your Lordships that there is 
 not one tittle of evidence sufficient to affect the char- 
 acter of the meanest of God's creatures ao-ainst Eeran in 
 rehition to this. Here he is spoken of as a fellow- 
 criminal in the Phfcnix Park murders. It proceeds at 
 page 254 : — 
 
 " On the 18th of February 1883, her sister-in-law had returned 
 from Ireland, with JE200 from Egan to enable the whole gang to 
 escai)c to America ; and o\\ Mrs. P)yrne's discharge from custodj', 
 Egan made her a further grant of money for the same purpose." 
 
 My Lords, on neither of those statements is there (I 
 will not complain of being interrupted ; I ask to be 
 interrupted if I am wrong) one tittle of evidence sub- 
 mitted to this Court. I want to know wdience came tJiis 
 information, if there were information, which justified 
 the writer of these libels in making so serious a charge 
 as th.at ? Were The. Times, even at that early date, in 
 connnunication with spies and with informers who were 
 giving them false information for payment ; but who 
 are found to be utterly unproducil)le, utterly unworthy 
 of credit ; so that no attempt even is made before your 
 Lordships to substantiate the grave and weighty charges 
 founded upon their information ? At page L3, my Lords, 
 the Attorney-General said before the (Commission, but 
 I have already read that passage, and I will not read it 
 again. It is one in Avliich he refers to the payments 
 — not an exceptional instance, but over a long period of 
 time. I will not trouble your Lordships by referring 
 to that. But then comes a passage with which 1 
 must trouble your Lordships. I have referred to it in 
 my gcnci-al opening ; I must do so again. The Attorney- 
 General says, at page 186 : — 
 
574 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS xxii 
 
 " I think it will appecar that an emissary of the Tiiuul League, 
 an agent of the Land League, used to get tlie money fiom tlui 
 treasurer — either Mr. Biggar or Wv. Brennan or Mr. Egan, any oue 
 of the officials who might be in charge ; used to take down the 
 money, £20 or £30, having received the money of course from Mr. 
 Biggar or from any of the other officials who handed it ; used to 
 take down the £20 or £30 into the district, and then distribute 
 it locally to the men who were to carry out the outrages." 
 
 My Lords, again I ask, where is there a tittle of 
 evidence in support of that allegation ? The justification 
 which the Attorney-General and those who instruct him, 
 I suppose, thought they had in their minds were the 
 forged letters attributed to Patrick Egan, That is the 
 meaninof, but so far as evidence in this case is concerned 
 there is none, and I shall look with some curiosity (I am 
 afraid it may be at a remote period) to the time when 
 the Attorney-General comes to grapple with these state- 
 ments which I am now making, to see the course which 
 he will feel himself bound — nay, compelled to take in 
 relation to them. 
 ^ixth My fjords, the sixth charge is this : Tliat at the time 
 
 of the Kilmainham negotiations Mr. Parnell knetu 
 that Sheridan and Boyton had been oi^ganising out- 
 rage, and therefore loislied to use them to 'put down 
 outrage. 
 
 At page 139 of the Commission, on the second day, 
 the Attorney-General uses this language : — 
 
 " You will, I think, have no doubt upon the evidence which I 
 shall be able to lay before you, that Mr. Parnell knew perfectly 
 well, not only that the outrages had taken place, not only that the 
 outrages had followed in various parts of Ireland from the sijceches 
 that had been made by the representatives of the Land League, but 
 knew the persons who had been mainly instrumental in the or- 
 ganisation of those outrages ; and I particvdarly Avish to make 
 myself clear with regard to that matter. I have mentioned that 
 Sheridan was one of the persons who was the chief organiser in 
 
 liav'ie. 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 575 
 
 the west, and Eoyton was one of the persons who was the chief 
 organiser in Leinster." 
 
 Again, I pause to ask, in the heterogeneous mass of 
 evidence presented to this court, extending over a period 
 of sonii; sixty (hiys, or nearly sixty days, excluding the five 
 or six days whi(;]i tlie Attorney-General took in his open- 
 ing, A\ here do 1 find one scintilla of evidence of outrage 
 organised hy Sheridan in the west, or of outrage organised sbcri.ian 
 l)y l>oyton in the east, in Leinster % I say there is none. Boyton. 
 
 Again, at page IGG, the Attorney-General says this, 
 (it is foreshadowing evidence which, I presume, the 
 Attorney-General was instructed Captain O'Shea would 
 give, l)iit which he did not give) : — 
 
 "'J'lie interview with Cai)tain O'Shea is most important, hecanse, 
 if wliat passed between Mr. Parnell and the witness I shall call be 
 true, nndoid)tedly he knew that Sheridan had been actively and 
 intimately engaged in the promotion of outrages in the west; that 
 I!oyt(jn had been actively engaged in the promotion of outrages in 
 Leinster ; that Egan had been supplying the funds with which out- 
 rages had been promoted, not only in those places, but elsewhere." 
 
 i\ly Lords, so much for that, the sixth head of charge. 
 
 I'he seventh charge is this : That the Invincible.^ seventh 
 were a hiroicJi of the Land League, and were orr/anised^^^^^^^' 
 and ]mid hy E<jan, the Treasnrer of the Land League. 
 
 The Blue Book, at pages 95, 98, 100, 101, 102, 123, 
 and 211, I will proceed to read. The Attorney-General, 
 at page 100, says: — 
 
 "That the Invincilde party, or I will say the outrage part}', of 
 the Land League were prepared to threaten, ay, to do violence, it 
 may l»e, to JNlr. Parnell, because he had denounced them." 
 
 On the same page : — 
 
 "The result of Mr. Parnell's action in the House of Commons 
 would be to rei)udiate the action of this Land League body, by 
 which I mean the body who were capable of these outrages." 
 
576 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 asaui. 
 
 On the next page, 101 : — 
 
 " Mr. Pariiell did state that the Phoenix Park murders, in his 
 opinion, proceeded from some other organisation. It may be that 
 that is a matter which you will have to take into your considera- 
 tion, but having regard to what I have told you I shall be prepared 
 to prove, about Egan, Brennan, and the men who were convicted, 
 I think you will have no doubt as to the organisation from whicli 
 those Phoenix Park murders proceeded." 
 
 I need not point out that that means from the Land 
 
 League. 
 
 " It must have taxed the Avit of a man even as clever as he is 
 to know how he could deal with the conflicting elements which 
 were raging around him, the extreme branch of the Land League, 
 or the members of the Land League, who had so acted in connection 
 with what had just gone before." 
 
 Tiie Forged And then in this connection comes in the only ground 
 Letters — ^j^^ rottcu gTOuud — that has given way beneatli the 
 feet of the Attorney-General, namely, his reference to 
 the forged letter, Egan to Carey, of the 25th October 
 1881, as to which he says on page 123: "You will 
 not fail to note the coincidence in November 1881 " — 
 that being the time, your Lordships will recollect, 
 according to the evidence of Delaney, which may or 
 may not be true, that the Invincil)le conspirac}^ was 
 first gathering head in Duljlin. Wo, spoke of the end of 
 1881 at one place, and October at another place. And 
 see how the charge is woven into the letters. Having made 
 this broad statement, the Attorney-General refers to the 
 letter Egan to Carey of October 1881— the very time : — 
 
 " I have by this post sent M. £200. lie will give you Avhat 
 you want. When will you undertake to get to work and give us 
 (the Land League) value for our money % " 
 
 And then says the Attorney-General — quite rightly and 
 justly, if the letter were not a forged letter : — 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 577 
 
 "You will not fail to note the coincidence in November 1881 
 of this letter of Egan's from Paris, sending the £200 to him (Carey), 
 when value was to be given for their money." 
 
 M}^ Lords, does not this let light in upon the forgery 
 of these letters ? Does it not show to your Lordships 
 that these letters were forged to fit in with the theory 
 that the Land Leai^ue and the Laud Leaojue leaders 
 were parties to this atrocious conspiracy ? For it is 
 necessary to bear in mind that that letter was in the 
 second batch of letters, therefore was forged as supplying 
 the demand, the political appetite, for more libels of this 
 kind to fit in with and to support the previous general 
 allegations of libel which had been published without 
 circumstantiality in previous articles. 
 
 Then, my Lords, when we come nearer to the day of 
 that awful scene in the Phoenix Park in 1882, at page 
 98, we have this further letter: 11th March 1882, 
 Egan to some one, I know not whom : — 
 
 " Dear. Sir — As I understand your letter which reached me to- 
 day, you cannot act as directed unless I forward you money by 
 ]\Iotiday's post. Well, here is £50 ; more if required." 
 
 And then your Lordships will recollect finally, in 
 this connection, the letter in which the reference is made 
 to the contribution to the A. fund, and in which the 
 initial letter of the name of the man Mullet, one of the 
 prominent actors in that atrocious scene in the Phoenix 
 Park, is introduced, again written for the purpose of 
 fitting in with the previous general theory designed 
 skilfully — with skilful wickedness designed — to try, by 
 means of these forged documents, to fix the stain of 
 complicity upon the Land League and its leaders. 
 
 At page 211 of the Blue P>ook your Lordships will 
 find a reference to Mr. Egan which is important. It is 
 a reference to Pat Egan. This is the phrase : — 
 
 2 P 
 
578 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS xxii 
 
 "The man wlio hinted to the Invincibles that talk would never 
 open the gates of Kilmainham," 
 
 which again is repeated at page 228. My Lords, what 
 was the authority for that statement ? Where is the 
 evidence in this case that goes by one tittle — I care not- 
 whether evidence from tainted or nnwortliy sources or 
 not, but from any source — to support that statement? 
 Where did The Times get their information ? I do 
 not mean to suggest that this was a deliberate coinage 
 out of their own brain, but what was the information ? 
 Where was it ? It has not been produced. No attempt 
 to produce it has been made, and we have no explanaliun 
 why it has not been produced. 
 
 Your Lordships will recollect that in relation to these 
 Egan-Carey letters, there was one circumstance especially 
 addinor to that volume of circumstances which ou^ht 
 even more to have put The Times upon its guard, if 
 they were not wholly blinded by a spirit of partisanship, 
 and carried away l)y the reckless desire to injure 
 political opponents. That was this : it was })ublic 
 information, public knowledge, that a search had been 
 made at Carey's house, tliat two genuine letters of 
 Egan and Patrick Egan to Carey had been found by the police. 
 arey. 'pi^osc letters liavc been produced, and are before your 
 Lordships. They are letters perfectly innocent, perfectly 
 harmless, and surely, when in 1887, years after that 
 search, years after the trial, years after the conviction of 
 the men engaged in this atrocious plot, and when there 
 had been nothing forthcoming from any quarter to 
 implicate Egan, or to point to his complicity in that plot 
 — surely it ought to have put The Times upon in(juiry 
 as to the source from which those letters came ; how, if 
 it was addressed to Carey, it had escaped the search of 
 the police ; how, if it was addressed to Carey, it had got 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 579 
 
 into the hands from whicli it reached The, Times. 
 No ! From beginning to end no inquiry. I might 
 ahnost say, eyes deliberately shut against inquiry into 
 the history of these forgeries. 
 
 Then, my Lords, at page 225 of the Blue Book, still 
 under the same seventh head of chareje referrinsf to the 
 facsimile letter, published with the article from which I 
 have just read a passage, it says : — 
 
 "It is right and necessary to explain that the 'Dear Sir' is 
 believed to be Egan, and tliat the letter was addressed to liim in 
 order to pacify the Avratli of his subordinate instruments in the 
 Phccnix Park murders." 
 
 And at page 253 : — 
 
 " l')Ut tlie fact is clenr, however it be accounted for, that several 
 inoiitbs after, ho resigned the trcasurership." 
 
 I have already referred to that statement about Egan 
 (wholly without evidence) as to his having given a sum 
 of money to some relation of ]\Ir. 1 Byrne's. But your 
 Lordships will observe the statement there is that it 
 was l.)elicve(,l to be addressed to Egan. AVell, of course, 
 that has gone to the ground, and l)een proved to be a 
 forger}^, and I suppose it was upon this basis that the 
 Attorney-General felt himself justified, in O'Donnell v. 
 Walter, in insinuatiuo^ that these letters — not this one 
 only, but tliese letters — were addressed to and received 
 from confederates of Mr. Parnell, as one of the reasons 
 why, in these days of dynamite and assassination, he 
 was not willing to expose those confederates to danger 
 from their disclosure? 
 
 My Lords, the eighth charge is : 27iat Mr. Parnell EiRiith 
 ivas intimate ivith the leading Invincihles ; that heprob- 
 ahhj learned from them ivhat they -were about when he 
 ivas released on parole in April 1882 ; that he recognised 
 
58o THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS xxii 
 
 the Phcenix Park murders as thei7' handnvork ; and that, 
 hnoioing it to he tJieirs, a7id partly in fear for Jiis own 
 safety, he secretly qualified, and revoked the condemnation 
 ivhicJi he had thoiiglit it politic j^uhlicly to p)ro7wunce. 
 
 At page 169 the Attorney-General, referring to tlii.s 
 matter before your Lordsliips, thought it prudent to try 
 and tone down the weight of the charge which T/ie 
 Times had made in relation to this matter directly 
 against Mr. Parnell, as I shall show you, Mr. Justin 
 McCarthy, and some others. The Attorney -General 
 sa5^s : — • 
 
 " It is no part of my case to suggest, nor do I propose to give 
 any evidence to suggest, that prior to " 
 
 your Lordships will observe the distinction he draws — 
 
 " tliat prior to tlie Phoenix Park murders, Mr. Parnell had any 
 knowledge of any such murders being contemplated." 
 
 My Lords, I j^refer in this matter to take what T/ie 
 Times said, to judge what The Times wrote, and to 
 ask your Lordships what was the meaning The Times 
 intended its readers to adopt ? In order to convey the 
 whole of this to your Lordships, I will read a passage of 
 rather greater length than any I have previously 
 troubled your Lordships with. It begins at the bottom 
 of page 200 of the Blue Book : — 
 
 "Mr. Parnell was liberated on parole on 10th April 1882, to 
 attend his nephew's funeral in Paris. He was late for the funeral, 
 but he passed several days in Paris and in London. Messrs. Egan, 
 Sexton, and Healy, happened to be in the French capital, while 
 Mr. Justin M'Carthy, the chairman, and Mr. Frank Byrne, the 
 general secretary of the League in this country (under its then alias 
 of ' The National Land and Labour League of Great Britain '), Avent 
 out to meet the Lish mail at Willesden the evening of their leader's 
 release ; Mr. Frank Byrne, indeed, ' was the first to enter the 
 compartment and greet Mr. Parnell, whom he Avarmly shook by 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 581 
 
 the hand. That gentleman appeared delighted at seeing him,' and 
 expressing (s.ic) liis satisfaction at meeting him. But Mr. Parnell 
 had tlic iiiexpressil)le mortification of informing his friends in both 
 cities, tliat his parole bound him to refrain from politics. His From 
 honour, indeed, was the sole obstacle to the most exhaustive j<,„|^",',^| 
 discussion of all pending transactions between the confederates. Criine." 
 Tlie heads of Mr. rarnell's several organisations were at hand. 
 They had many vital secrets on their minds. They had every 
 facility for private conference with their chief. All of them were 
 not distinguished by a chivalrous regard for truth. But on the 
 24th ]\Ir. Parnell returned to Kilmainham, his pledge, we are 
 asRiued, inviolate, in letter and in spirit. He had his reward. He 
 was dclinitivel}' released on 2d May, and hastened to London Avith 
 his li])erated lieutenants. On Saturday, 6th May, he escorted ]\lichael 
 ])a,vitt from Portland Prison to town. At Vauxhall the chiefs were 
 met 1)y Mr. Frank Byrne, and other favoured disciples. The same 
 evening. Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Thomas Burke Avere 
 sta])I)ed with amputating knives in the Phtcnix Park. The knives 
 were brought to Dublin for the purpose by a woman, whom one of 
 the i>riiicipal assassins believed to be Frank Byrne's wife. The 
 shock to the ])u])lic conscience Avas tremendous. On the Sunday, 
 Davitt drcAv up a manifesto recording his oAvn horror and that of 
 his co-signatories, JMessrs. Parnell and Dillon, at the deed. The 
 same day, Mr. J. Yj. Kedmond, M.J\, spoke at Manchester. He, 
 loo, condemned the Chief-Secretary's murder, l^ut it is a ])oint of 
 high significance, noted at the time, that at this meeting 'no 
 reference Avhatever Avas made to the murder of Mr. Burke.' Not 
 less curious is the prescience AAdiich enabled Mr. Parnell to assure a 
 representative of The France that ' the crime Avas neither organised 
 nor executed by the Fenians . . . but by assassins Avho may, I 
 think, be members of some association much more extreme.' " 
 
 i\Iy Loi'ds, I reject tlie attempted gloss Avliicli the 
 Attorney -General lias sought to put upon that passage. 
 No man who hears mc, though I care not Avhat anybody 
 else thinks, except your Lordships, none of your Lord- 
 ships who heard me read that passage, can doubt what 
 it meant, namely, that it meant to level at the heads of 
 tliose men who nre tliere mentioned, tlie charge that 
 
582 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 they had personal knowledge of, and that they were 
 taking active part, and had taken active part, in tliis 
 most atrocious crime. 
 
 Again, at pages 216, 217, and 225, there are 
 passages to which I must call your Lordships' attention. 
 One is a letter published in Tlie Times, signed X. ; it is 
 included in what is called " Parnellism and Crime " : — 
 
 " No references were made, as well as I remember, to the ilocu- 
 ment which proved conclusively that Mr. Parnell was in direct 
 association with three of the most infamous of the gang of 
 murderers known as Invincibles." 
 
 The letter is signed X. Will it be believed that that 
 has reference to a meetine^ in relation to tlie demand for 
 an amnesty to be granted by the Crown to prisoners 
 then remaining in custody who were suffering in 
 respect of the Fenian movement of 1805-67 ; and to an 
 address of welcome to Mr. Michael Davitt upon his 
 release from prison. That amnesty movement, which 
 resulted in that release, was instituted openly. It had 
 at its head Mr. Isaac Butt and citizens of the hiohest 
 respectability in Ireland, men who had no sympatliy 
 whatever with the Fenian movement at all, but who 
 were joining in the appeal to the Crown for the exten- 
 sion of the Crown's clemency in the interest of the peace 
 of the country. 
 
 Tlien there is another letter from a o-entleman bear- 
 
 o 
 
 ing on the same subject, which relates to that year 
 1878. I will not dwell upon it. This gentleman has 
 the manliness to sion his name. He is a oentleman 
 from some of whose other writinos I have cited, Mr. 
 Philip Bagenal. I have another reference to a letter on 
 page 225. At page 225 they say — this, my Lords, is 
 in relation to the facsimile letter :- — 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 583 
 
 " Wc particularly direct attention to the erasure in the manu- 
 script, as undersigneJ evidence of authenticity ; and should any 
 questions be raiswl as to the body of the letter being in another 
 lia.ndwriting, we shall be prepared to adduce proof that this pecu- 
 liarity is (juitc consistent with its genuine character." j 
 
 ]\Iy Lords, in reference to the article from wliicli 
 tlint p.'issnge is taken, I will adopt the description given 
 of it l)y the Attorney-General, at page 143 in the Blue 
 Jjook, where he says : — 
 
 " There cannot be the slightest doubt that a more gross libel 
 never was wiitten of any public man than this paragraph which I 
 am now reading with reference to Mr. Parnell." 
 
 I agree with the Attorney-General. I adopt his 
 language and description. 
 
 Now, my Lords, I come to the ninth and last charge, ^inth 
 and that is this : That Mr. Parnell on the 23cZ January ^'''''^'"s^- 
 1883, hy an opijortune remittance, enabled Byrne to 
 escape from justice to France. 
 
 I rend in support of that passage one from the Blue 
 Book at page 254 and one at page 256 : — 
 
 " It was an opportune remittance from Mr. Parnell himself 011 
 tlie 23d January which had enabled I>yrne to escape to France 
 before the warrant for his arrest reached Scotland Yard." 
 
 And this again is repeated in the leader on page 252, 
 with til is addition : — 
 
 "That he should have supplied Byrne with funds is quite in ]5yi„e an'l 
 harmony with the tone and purport of his letter on the Phoenix ^''° ^^^^ 
 
 •' ^ ^ Cheque. 
 
 Park murders. ' 
 
 And again at page 256 : — 
 
 " The question, however, is not one of opinion but of fact." 
 (1 agree.) "If ]\Ir. Parnell supplied Byrne with money to leave the 
 country in Jaiuiary of 1883, the significance of the action cannot 
 be obscured by any casuistic subtleties or argumentative sleight- 
 ofhand." 
 
584 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS xxii 
 
 Byrne and I ao;ree, and I am glad that at last I have come to a 
 
 tl ^ /'1 00 O ' o 
 
 Cheque, definite, specific charge which can be definitely and 
 specifically met. The letters formed one definite and 
 specific charge. This forms one definite and specific 
 charge too. 
 
 Now, my Lords, let me give your Lordships con- 
 nectedly the history of the whole matter, giving it not 
 by a statement of my own, but by a reference to con- 
 temporaneous written records and contemporaneous 
 written letters. Your Lordships will recollect the 
 . statement of Mulqueeny, which I may refer to at this 
 part of the case, namely, that the English branch of 
 the organisation was frequently supplemented with funds 
 from the Irish branch ; that Frank Byrne was the secre- 
 tary of the English branch, which had no connection 
 with the Irish branch ; that Frank Byrne, as the secre- 
 tary, was the person who paid the liabilities of the 
 English branch for organisers, and so forth. 
 
 Now, my Lords, to recur to the story. A meeting 
 of the executive of the Land and Labour branch of 
 Great Britain was held 15th December 1882, at Palace 
 Chambers, the following minute in its books appears : — 
 
 " A letter from the general secretary was read " (that was 
 Byrne), "stating that lie was still unfit to return to business, and 
 drawing the attention of the executive to its financial position, 
 there being only a sum of £1:6:1 on hand if the vote asked for 
 at i^resent meeting should be adopted ; and that very little money 
 would come in during the holidays, while the ordinary expenses 
 woidd still be running ; and that a printing account of i^23 was 
 due. He advised an application to the Irish National League, 
 through Mr. Parnell, for an advance to cover jiresent recpiirements. 
 The secretary also suggested an adjournment of a fortnight to 
 cover the Christmas holidays. 
 
 "At this meeting it was proposed by Mr. Cronin, seconded by 
 Mr. Rogers, and resolved (Mr. J. Oarell only dissenting) — ' That 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 585 
 
 tlie executive instruct the secretary to apply through Mr. Parnell Byrne ami 
 to the Trisli National League for a sufficient sum of moiiev to meet ^}]^ ^ 
 
 " '' Cliequc. 
 
 our immediate requirements.' " 
 
 This is the 15th December. On the 29th December 
 the following minute appears : — 
 
 " The general secretary wrote that he was still unfit to return 
 to his (luti(^s, iind that he had written to Mr. Parnell making ap- 
 ])lication for an advance of £100, to which ho had received no 
 reply." 
 
 Now, my Lords, tlie next is a letter of the 1st of 
 .laiiuary 1882, from Byrne direct to Mr. Parnell. This 
 letter has Ix'cn disclosed to the prosecution, and they 
 have seen it, or had an opportunity of seeing it. On 
 the 1st of January Mr. Byrne wrote to Mr. l^irnell in 
 these words : " Dear sir, 1 wrote to you about a fort- 
 niglit since" — and if your Lordships will just bear the 
 dates in mind you will see that will bring you back to 
 the 15th of December, or about the loth of December, 
 when he was first authorised by the committee to write 
 to Mr. Parnell. That letter is not forthcoming. Mr. 
 Pai-Jiell has not been al)le to find it, Init there is no 
 doul)t that it was written. Mr. Byrne's letter is in 
 these words : — 
 
 " C. S. Parnell Esq. 
 
 "Dear Siii — 1 wrote to you about a fortnight since, 
 asking an advance from the Irish National League of £100 for 
 the i)ur])oscs of our organisation. This letter, Mr. M'Swecny 
 tells me, you have not received, and as the matter is pressing 
 1 now bi'g to bring it under your nf)tice. At a meeting of the 
 central executive held on Friday, 15th December last, 1 was in- 
 structed by resolution 'to apply to the Irish National League 
 through Mr. Parnell, M.P., for an advance of a sufficient sum of 
 money to meet present requirements.' Less than XI 00 would l)e 
 of little, use for this i)uri)oso. Our liabilities (pressing), including 
 rent due last quarter, being upwards of £100. This state of things 
 
5S6 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 Byrne and is due partly to the non-payment of the usual remittances iluring 
 Clfec ne ^^^^ Christmas holidays, but much more largely to the fact that ior 
 some time past, owing to a difference in title, etc., we have not 
 seemed to be working on the same lines or in harmony with the 
 Irish National League. For some time our income has been sadly 
 diminishing, and I am convinced will continue to diminish, except 
 we can show by fresh action of ours that we are still fully in 
 accord Avith the exponents of Irish popular opinion in Ireland. 
 The proposed change of the name and administration of funds 
 will doubtless have its effect if adopted, of which I have no 
 doubt. The branches have been given until the 25th iiist. to 
 decide. May I ask you to have this application considered at 
 once, and acquaint me with the results ? The executive has not 
 been able to pay salaries to organisers or office staff for the past 
 fortnight. — I am, dear sir, yours faithfully, 
 
 "Frank Byrne, Gm. Sec." 
 
 Now, my Lords, the next is an entry in the niinntes 
 of the same body of the 5tli of January. At a meeting 
 of the executive hekl 5th January 1883, tlie following- 
 entry appears on the minutes : — 
 
 " A letter was read from the general secretary, who was still 
 too unwell to be present " 
 
 your Lordships will have no douljt when you hear 
 the evidence that Byrne Avns not shannning illness, but 
 that he had been for a considerable time in ill-health — 
 
 "in Avhich it was stated ho had not yet received a reply to his 
 application to Mr. Parnell for an advance of £100, and that the 
 financial position of the executive was very bad, the organisers 
 being Avithout salary for three weeks, and dealing generally with 
 the business of the meeting." 
 
 Now, my Lords, Mr. Parnell wrote to the Lish 
 branch this letter on the 9th of January 1883. It is 
 addressed to the lion, secretaries of the Lish National 
 League, Dublin : — 
 
 " Gentlemen — I have been requested by the executive of the 
 National Land and Labour League of Great Britain to apply to you 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 587 
 
 for an advance to them for the snm of £100 to enable them to pay Byrne and 
 some current expenses pending their re-organisation on the lines of q^^ g_ 
 the Irish National League. 
 
 " I may explain that the treasurers of the late Land League 
 were in the habit of maldng the League of Great Britain similar 
 advances from time to time, and I shall be very glad if you Avill 
 bring this application before the next meeting of the organising 
 committee, and say to them that I think it desirable that the grant 
 should be made. 
 
 " I beg to enclose you exchange on the Consolidated Bank 
 of , Limited, for £20G : 3 : 8, which I have received from 
 
 the Newnrk branch of the League, New Jersey, atul also two letters 
 accompanying same, which I will thaidc you to have published in 
 the Frecmaiis Journal, United Ireland, and The Nation, when publish- 
 ing j-our next list of acknowledgments. 
 
 " I think it w^ould bo well to have fortnightly meetings of the 
 Organising Committee on some fixed day, so that all members 
 might know when to attend them, as there Avill probably be suificient 
 business for us to consider at these meetings. 
 
 " I also beg to enclose a note for £5 wdiich has been sent to me 
 anonymously, accompanied by the following memorandum: 'To 
 the Irish National Lengue, from one who most unha})[»ily has 
 Avritten, spoken, and thought evil of Ireland's friends.' In acknow- 
 ledging this sum I shall be glad if you will also give the 
 memorandum. 
 
 "Please send a formal receipt to Mr. ]\Iullen, whose address 
 you will find in the enclosed letter, and oblige yours very truly, 
 
 " Charles S. Parnell." 
 
 Now, my Lords, that is on the 9tli. It comes before 
 the oreanisiiio; committee of the Lea2;ue in Dublin on 
 the 17th, and this resohition is moved and carried : — 
 
 " On the motion of Mr. Thomas Sexton, seconded by Mr. J. J. 
 Clancy, it Avas resolved — That the application of Mr. Parnell for a 
 grant of £100 in aid of the Land and Labour League of Great 
 Britain should be acceded to, and the treasurer was empowered to 
 forwanl the amount." 
 
 And in the cash-l)ook of tlie Leaojue, under the date of 
 the 18th January 1883, appears this entry : — 
 
588 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 Byrne and "By sum voted to the Land and Labour League of Great 
 
 the £100 j^j-itain, at direction of Mr. Parnell, £100." 
 
 And on the 23d of January Mr. Parnell writes to 
 the secretary of the Dublin branch a letter of acknow- 
 ledgment thus : — 
 
 "Dear Mr. Harrington — I have received yoiu- letter of the 
 20th instant, with cheque for £100, whicli I have handed to the 
 secretary of the Land and Labour League of Great Britain, with 
 a request that formal receipt be sent to Mr, AVebb for same in due 
 course, as you suggest." 
 
 Mr. Webb was the treasurer of the League in Duljlin. 
 
 Now, my Lords, there are two other letters I have 
 to read to make this matter perfectly clear to your 
 Lordships. Those are the letters of Mr. Frank Byrne 
 to the executive of the Euglisli branch of the Htli of 
 February 1883, and the letter from the same Mr. Frank 
 Byrne to Mr. Quinn, treasurer of the English branch of 
 the League, on the 10th of February 1883. 
 
 It is set out at page 2887 : — 
 
 "8//a Fehnmry 1883. 
 
 "Gentlemen — I regret much that since I left home I have 
 not been al>le to write to you before now, as in addition to my 
 lung complaint I have been suffering from rheumatism in my right 
 hand and arm, which made it impossible for me to write. It is 
 much better now, but still far from being in a state to permit me 
 to write much. I was, as you have no doubt been informed by 
 Mr. M'Sweeney, obliged to leave suddenly by the positive orders 
 of the doctor, and could not, in consequence, communicate Avith 
 you previous to my departure. Mr. M'Sweeney will also have 
 informed you that I received the pronn'sed cheque, £100, from Wx. 
 Parnell, on the day I left London. Lnmediately on my arrival in 
 Paris I proceeded to discharge all the liabilities for Avhicli I had 
 authority, and I now enclose balance-sheet showing income and 
 expenditure from 30th Decendjer. You will see I have no account 
 of either since 20th January, except so far as re-adding the i-eceipt 
 of £100 on 23d, and cash sent to Mr. AValsh, for fortnight ending 
 20th January, and my own salary u}) to Saturday next. The cash 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS . 589 
 
 scut to Mr. Walsh Avas not authorised by you, as his returns, which Byrue ami 
 
 I now enclose, have not vet come before you. They are of the ^I® ^^^^ 
 ' J ./ J Cheque. 
 
 usual character, and I hope you will adopt them to-morrow night. 
 I sliall to-morrow forward to Mr. Qiiinn cheque or draft for amount 
 oil hand, £35 : 17 :7^, and Mr. M'Swecnc}'^ will, no doubt, supply 
 you with account of recei2)ts and expenditure since 20th January. 
 As it is impossible for me to conduct the business of the organisa- 
 tion from such a distance, and as it is likely to be some weeks 
 before T shall bo fit to return, I would respectfully request you to 
 relieve me for the present from the responsibility attached thereto, 
 and 1 would also suggest that as your income at present is not 
 l;nge, tliat you would consider whether you are in a i)osition to 
 continue to i)ay a salary of an oflicial who cannot perform his 
 duties. While making this suggestion I would also remind you 
 that my position is not an independent one. If not already done, 
 I would advise the oflicial alteration in the name, etc., of the 
 organisation, and its announcement to the branches immediately. 
 I shall be happy to hear from you in reply, and information upon 
 any point you may require I shall, of course, supply at the earliest 
 moment. — ^I am, gentleman, yours faithfully, 
 
 " Frank Byrne, Gni. Sec" 
 
 I'lie other letter to Mr. Quiiiu is at 2408, and is as 
 
 follows : — 
 
 "10//i Fchruarij 1883. 
 
 " My dear Quinn — T daresay you will have heard before now 
 that J had left London for a warmer climate, in accordaiice with 
 the positive orders of the doctor. I was obliged to leave suddenly 
 or I should have tried to see you before my dc]);irture. 
 
 " I am glad to say that already I find a considerable improv- 
 ment. The doctor thinks, however, that as soon as I am sufficiently 
 strong I should take a long sea voyage, and he recommends America. 
 I did not like the idea, but if my restoration to health depends 
 upon it, of course I must go. 
 
 "I enclose you a cheque for £35 : 17 : 7, the amoimt of cash 
 in my hands belonging to the executive. At the last settling 
 Ave had you held a sum of £1 : 6 : 1, so that you will now have 
 £37 : 3 : 8 in hand. 
 
 "If you can spare the time, and have the inclination, you 
 might chop me a few lines here. 
 
S90 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS xxi 
 
 Byrne and "I wish you would attend next executive meeting and inform 
 
 the £100 them of receipt of this, or else write them. — I am, dear Quinn, 
 ' '^'^"^' yours faithfully, Frank Byrne. 
 
 "P./S. — Kind regards to Mrs. Quinn and Tom." 
 
 My Lords, I liave a serious comment to make upon 
 tliis allegation. Let me remind your Lordships of what 
 the allegation is. 
 
 " It Avas an opportune remittance from ]\Ir. Parnell himself on 
 the 23d January which enabled Byrne to escape to France — that 
 he should have sui)plied Byrne with funds is quite in harmony Avitli 
 the tone and purport of his letter on the Phoinix Park murders. 
 The question is not one of opinion, but fact. If Mr. Parnell sup- 
 plied Byrne Avith money to leave the country in January 1883, 
 the significance of the action cannot be obscured by any casuistry or 
 subtleties or argumentative sleight-of-hand." 
 
 What authority had they for making that original 
 statement ? They had not, we have been told, I have 
 no doubt truly told upon his instructions by the 
 Attorney-General — they had not known of the letter to 
 Quinn the treasurer until the eve of the O'Donnell v. 
 Walter trial. They had not any knowledge of the letter 
 to the executive until during the time of the O'Donnell v. 
 Walter trial, and it comes, says Mr. Macdonald, to him 
 from what quarter he knows not, in an envelope without 
 a name or anytliing to identify its sender. If then he 
 had neither the letter to the executive nor the letter to 
 Quinn the treasurer, where was the information upon 
 which this grave, this wicked charge was based ? AVere 
 the representatives of The Times receiving information 
 from traitors in the employment of the Land League, 
 and were they daring, were they venturing upon such 
 information, from such tainted sources, to launch with- 
 out inquiry such accusations of defamation against the 
 character of public men ? 
 
xxTi THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 591 
 
 Now, my Lords, tliat tlie story has been told, what Byme ami 
 does it disclose ? A plain, straightforward, thorougldy cileque. 
 innocent transaction, in which Mr. Parnell is merely 
 made in the first instance the medium of communication 
 with the ]Jul)lin branch, and in the next instance he is 
 made the medium of communication from the Dublin 
 branch to pass on a chef|ue to ]\lr. Byrne. 
 
 But I go further, and 1 say that if they had had in 
 their possession both these letters, not only w^ould it 
 have Iteen no foundation f()r the charge, but it ouglit to 
 have conve3'cd to them, if their minds and judgments 
 were not wholly blurred, and their sense of right feeling 
 and discretion wliolly gone, it ought to have conveyed 
 to them, one or other or both of the letters, that that 
 was a perfectly lionest, open, and above board transac- 
 tion, fiee of tlie imputation of guilty connivance with 
 esca])e of a guilty criminal. 
 
 JMy Lords, the rest of this transaction is easily told. 
 ]\lr. P>yrue handed the cheque, there being no bank 
 account of the English branch of the League, to Mr. 
 Justin M'Carthy, and Mr. Justin M'Carthy gave his own 
 check in exchange. And wdien Mr. Justin M'Carthy's 
 attention was called to that matter, in July 1888, that 
 is to say, some five years after the event, he stated in 
 the House of Commons — erroneously stated in the 
 Jb)use of Connnons — that he had oiven his check for 
 
 o 
 
 c£lOO to Frank Byrne in exchange for a number of 
 smaller checjues which l^iank J.>yrne had given to him. 
 1 say erroneously stated, but tlie error was of no signifi- 
 cance" whatever, because he liad l)een in tlie habit of 
 doing that just as others, I think ]Mr. Foley amongst 
 them, had l)een in the habit of doing it, namely, of 
 giving their own cheques to Mr. Frank Byrne in 
 exchange for cheques which had been paid in as contri- 
 
592 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 
 
 Byrne iUHi butioiis to tliG fuiicls of tliG League. And the only 
 Cheque. eiTOi' tluit Mr, Justiu M'Cartliy, who, of course, will he 
 called before your Lordships, committed, was in stating 
 that he gave this cheque for £100 in exchange for 
 several cheques, in place of stating he had given it in 
 exchange for one of £100. 
 
 My Lords, that is the whole story of this matter, 
 and I think no words of mine could add to the simple, 
 clear, unmistakable view it gives to a transaction 
 which has formed the su])ject of so formidable a charge 
 in this case. 
 
 Now, I have to ask your Lordships, in view of this 
 terrible indictment, to turn your Lordships' minds back 
 to the evidence by which it has been sought to support 
 it. How insignificant, how utterly weak that evidence 
 seems. The indictment is broad, serious, of the gravest 
 kind ! When it consists of specific charges as to the 
 letters, as to the £100 cheque we have met and dis- 
 proved them. Wlien they are general, by wluit frag- 
 mentary proof are they sought to be supported, and 
 by fragmentary proof, from what tainted and unworthy 
 sources ! 
 The Writer My Lords, wc liavc been told that the writer of these 
 Liiism and Ubcls was a young gentleman, and, I am sorry to say, 
 ^^""^^' an Irishman. I do not wish to make harsh comments 
 upon him — I thought he would have been called into the 
 box, and that we should have had some opportunity 
 of following up the attempt my learned friend Mr. 
 Asquith made with Mr. Macdonald, to try and find out 
 what were the foundations for various grave allegations 
 in these libels, but he has not been called. He seems 
 to be possessed of considerable literary ability. I think 
 he might have employed his talents otherwise than using 
 them to defame his countrymen, and to discredit his 
 
XXII THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 593 
 
 country's cuuse. lie has sliown ingenuity in patching 
 togctlicr, in a curious piece of literary mosaic — in scraps 
 and patclies — a grave indictment against the Irisli 
 leaders ; Ijut it is due to him to say that he was after 
 all hut the machine, the creature who was employed to 
 do the work' of vilification. The pen was put into his 
 hands l)y others — a pen steeped in political gall. His 
 ol)j(M't seems to have heen, or the object of those who 
 inspired him seems to have been, to make charges broad 
 enough, strong enough, blasting enough to the reputation 
 of men he had known ; and sad experience shows that 
 if you only launch accusations strong enough and 
 frequently enough, you will succeed, however founda- 
 tionless those accusations may l)e, in injuring the man 
 or the men against whom they are directed — 
 
 "A tli(3usaii(l 1)lackcr names, worse calumnies, 
 All Avit can think and pregnant spite devise. 
 Strike liome, gash deep, no lies nor slanch^r spare ; 
 A wound, though cured, yet leaves behind a scar." 
 
 J\1y Lords, we have endeavoured to lay our case 
 l)efore you to the best of our ability in some methodical 
 fashjo]!. We have endeavoured to show, and we claim 
 to have shown, as accounting for the crime which your 
 Lordships are inquiring into, and its origin, that in 
 former times there had been greater crime in greater 
 volume, of the same class, proceeding from the same 
 causes, directed against the same classes of people, and 
 that with recurrent distress there had been the recur- 
 rent recrudescence of crime. We have endeavoured to 
 si low to your Lordships, and we believe we have shown 
 l)y authentic, contemporaneous otlicial records mainly, 
 that there was in 1879, 1880, and in 1881 widespread, 
 deep distress and misery in Ireland. We claim to have 
 shown that there was a failure of rarliament, although 
 
 2 Q 
 
594 THE CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS xxii 
 
 the House of Commons made an attempt in tliat direc- 
 tion, that there was a faihire of Parliament to meet the 
 needs of tlie time, \r^ offering to the chiss of tenants in 
 Ireland, who most needed it, temporary protection from 
 civil process of ejectment in their distress. We have 
 shown yonr Lordships that the landlord class failed, in 
 circumstances of the time, to meet broadly, generously, 
 patriotically, the necessities that were pressing at that 
 time upon their unhappy country ; and, my Lords, we 
 have shown you that in the circumstances of the time it 
 was nothing less than could have been expected that the 
 people thus left without protection, which the repi-esen- 
 tative House of the Legislature had decided that they 
 needed, should resort to combinations amongst them- 
 selves to guard against, and if they could, to prevent the 
 recurrence of the nameless horrors of the famine years 
 of 1846 and 1847. 
 
 My Lords, I have said before, and I say again, your 
 Lordships are trying the liistory of 10 j^ears of revolu- 
 tion in L^eland, revolution partly social, partly political, 
 and you are tr3dng that revolution at a moment when, 
 by legal process of the (^)ueen's courts, the Lish people 
 are gathering the fruits of that revolution. 
 
 I would ask your Lordships without predilection, 
 political, or otherwise — I know your Lordships will try, 
 I have never doubted, never thought otherwise, and that 
 your Lordships will endeavour honestly to try this case 
 upon the evidence, and that you will apply in the con- 
 sideration of its broad outlines that same fair, that same 
 generous consideration which would be extended to it 
 by any body of intelligent men if they were considering 
 a similar case of a similar liistory in another country. 
 
 My Lords, I was obliged to speak early in the course 
 of my observations of one cause which unquestionably 
 
XXII in E CHARGES AND ALLEGATIONS 595 
 
 seriously operates in Ireland to produce distrust of law 
 and administration, and to create a chasm — it is a griev- 
 ous tliijig it sliould be so — l)etween the people and the 
 cnforcemont of tlie law. 1 will not trouble your J^ord- 
 ships with any lengthened ol.vservations upon that point, 
 but as the (piestion of motive for the actions of men who 
 are here accused largely enters into the consideration of 
 tlie general ((uestion, I should like to point attention to 
 wliat those causes or some of them are. I shall do it 
 very Iniefly, mentioning meanwhile that the Irish party 
 \\i\\Q, again and again tried by the action of Parliament 
 to remove some of those disturbina: causes. 
 
XXIII. 
 C0NCLUDINC4 OBSERVATIONS 
 
 My Lords, there are two parties in Ireland, and two 
 parties only in Ireland. There is the party which de- 
 sires that the law, the government, the administration 
 shall he in accordance with the wants and the wishes 
 of the majority of the people of Ireland ; that is one 
 party. There is another party who affect to Ijelieve, 
 many of them I am sure honestly believe, that they are 
 very much better judges of what the interests of the 
 people of Ireland demand than are the majority of its 
 people. The former party may be called the Nati(jnalist 
 party, the latter goes ])y various names. Sometimes it 
 is the party of the '' respecta1)le class." Sometimes it is 
 the party of the "loyal minority." Sometimes it is the 
 party of "law and order." My I^ords, loyalty, law, 
 order are terms which have been much misapplietl, 
 much misused in Ireland. The essential dilferences 
 between the two parties are these. First, that the 
 majority of the nation look for their support, for tlieir 
 impulse, from the people of Ireland, and that the other 
 party look for their support and influence, not to the 
 people amongst whom they live, but to forces external 
 to Ireland. 
 
 The next difference is that the one party is a great 
 political power in Ireland, the other, as J luue shown 
 
XXIII THE TWO PARTIES IN IRELAND 597 
 
 your fjordsliips from the election returns which 1 cited 
 tlic otlier (lay, has ceased to be a political power in 
 Ireland. 
 
 But, my Lords, — strange phenomenon, a phenomenon, 
 so far as I am aware, unknown in the history of any 
 country in the world which is supposed to be governed 
 under a constitution, and under a representative consti- 
 tution, — the smaller party, looking for its influence and 
 support outside Ireland, possesses at this day all the posi- 
 tions of executive power and of administrative authority 
 ill iJic land. As ex officio guardians they control the 
 unions, as grand jurors they control the counties. They 
 are the class from whom magistrates paid and unpaid 
 are selected. They furnish the district inspectors and 
 inspectors of police. They crowd the lx);irds of educa- 
 tion, the Asylums Pxiard, the 'PMiard of AVorks, and the 
 liocaj (h)vernment Board — each one of these being boards 
 without representation — they alone have touch of the 
 Castle and its tenants, and the CVastle and its tenants 
 have no touch with the popular mind and popular opinion 
 in Ireland. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, I am not exaggerating tliis stor}^ 1 
 would like to read words graA^er and weightier than my 
 own, and adopt them as my own. The words are these : 
 
 "I do not believe that the great majority of Kiiglislimen have 
 the slightest conception of the system under which this free nation 
 atteni{)ts to rule a sister country. It is a system which is founded 
 on the jtayoncts of 30,000 soldiers cncanii)cd permanently ns in a 
 hostile country. It is a system as completely centralised and bureau- 
 cratic as that with which Ilussia governs Poland, or as that which 
 Avas common in Venice under Austrian rule. An Irishman at this 
 moment cannot move a step ; he cannot lift a finger in any parochial, 
 municipal, or educational Avork, without being confronted, interfered 
 Avith, controlled by an English official appointed by a foreign Govern- 
 ment, and without a shadow or share of representative authority. I 
 
598 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 say the time has come to reform altogether the al)siird and irritating 
 anachronism Avhich is known as l)ul)lin Castle — to sweej) away 
 altogether these alien boards of foreign oflicials, and to suhstitnte 
 for them a genuine Irish administration for })urely Irish Imsiiiess." 
 
 That, my TiOrds, is not the excited hmgiuige of an 
 excited agitator ; it is the huignage of a man wlio is a 
 privy comicillor of the Queen, and has served in otHces 
 of the State, Mr. Chamberhiin, spoken not many years 
 aa'O, but in 1885. And ao-ain : — 
 
 " It is difficult for Englishmen to realise how little influence the 
 people in Ireland have in the management of even the smallest of 
 their local afiaiis, and how constantly the alien race looms before 
 their eyes as the omnipresent controlling poA\er. The Castle, as it 
 is called, is in Ireland synonymous with the government. Its in- 
 fluence is felt, and constantly felt, in every department of administra- 
 tion, local and central, and it is little ^\'onder that the Irish jjeople 
 should regard the Castle as the embodiment of foreign supremacj^ 
 The rulers of the Castle are to them foreign in race or in sympathj^, 
 or in both. ... If the object of government were to paralyse local 
 efibrt, to aiHiihilate local responsibility, and daily to give emphasis 
 to the fact that the whole country is under the domination of an 
 alien race, no system could be devised more likely to secure its object 
 than that now in force in Ireland." 
 
 That was the language published Later in 1885 by the 
 same statesman. Is it wonder, in the ftice of this, that 
 there should be distrust, tliat tliere shouhl l)e alienation 
 from the Law, that tliere should he no faith in the ad- 
 ministration of justice, because the people have no part 
 in and there is no assent asked to that administration, 
 no responsibility, because there is no power placed upon 
 the people ? 
 
 My Lords, one other point I would mention, Ijecause 
 it is directly in question in tlie consideration of some 
 branches of this case. In this country the execnitive 
 stand apart, speaking generally, from putting in force the 
 
xxiii THE TWO PARTIES IN IRELAND 599 
 
 criminal law of the land — in greater part in putting in 
 for(?e the criminal law of the land — I am not saying 
 whether the system is right or not, where there are no dis- 
 tiirhing politi(;al (Questions, but so it is. But the putting 
 in force the criminal law of the land is in great part in this 
 country still left to the voluntary action of the persons 
 su2)p<iscd to he aggrieved. In Ireland the whole action 
 of the administration of the criminal law is set in motion 
 and controlled directly by the hands of the executive, 
 by the iVttorney-Gcneral — a political oHicer of the chi}^ 
 — and there is, or until lately there was, in Ireland a 
 functionary unknown in this country, called the Law 
 Adviser of the Castle, who is brought in contact con- 
 stantly with the magistrates, to whom the magistrates 
 constantly refer for advice ^ — I might almost say for 
 direction. And whether xv^ow grounds suiHcient or 
 insuflicicnt — I do not stop to dwell upon or incpiire — the 
 feeling is created in the minds of the class of people 
 against whom the law is more commonly so put in 
 motion that it is all the action of the executive, which 
 means the action of the (Jovernment. 
 
 ]\ly Lords, I have spoken of this small but important 
 section of the Irish community which may be called, 
 though a minority, the a1)solute governing class in the 
 connnunity. Mr. Parnell and Mr. Parnell's associates 
 have earned the uncompromising liostility of that class. 
 It is perhaps the highest tribute to the worth of his 
 lal)ours that he has done so. 
 
 AVe are told that there are signs of returning pros- 
 perity in h-eland — a gleam of returning health across 
 the face of the country. If it be so, fervently I would 
 say Deo (pxttias. We are told that crime is lessened in 
 in lr(>laii(l, if it be so, again I would say Deo (jreitias. 
 J>ut, my Lords, it cannot be a sound, it cann(.)t be a 
 
6oo CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 liealthy, it cannot l)e a stable state of things, wlien there 
 are such scenes as are now (in rehition to that ver}^ [jand 
 Question) being enacted in Donegal ; and when there 
 are no less than 25 members — representative members 
 of the Irish people — in prison. If they have committed 
 crimes odious to men of moral sense, by all means, if 
 they were ten times members of Parliament, let them 
 be sent there ; but the sio-nificant condition of thinos 
 in their regard is this, that they are not even in this 
 land — even in this free land of England, regarded by a 
 large section of its community as criminals, Avhile in 
 their own land they are regarded as heroes and martyrs 
 in a sacred cause. 
 
 My Lords, I will not pursue the subject, though I 
 might desire to say more upon it. I will, however, say 
 this much. This I believe to be the true, the ])est 
 guarantee for peace and order, in the prevention of, the 
 recurrence of, the painful crime that your L(^rdships 
 have been inquiring into, is in the belief and hope, 
 strong in Irish breasts to-day, that the time has come 
 when the state of things that has caused this must 
 come to an end. 
 
 My Lords, for their work in bringing this "consum- 
 mation, devoutly to be wished," close at hand, the Irish 
 party stands before your I^ordships' bar to-day. They 
 can point to marvellous work in 10 years ; marvellous in 
 the condition in which that work has been accomplished. 
 
 Then, in the beginning of those years, it is no 
 exaggeration to say, the Irish peasant farmer stood 
 trembling, "with bated breath and whispering humble- 
 ness" in the presence of landlord, agent, bailiff, for that 
 man's fate was verily in the hollow of their hands. He 
 had no spur to industry, and no security that he should 
 reap where he had sown. 
 
xxiii IVHAl^ THE NATIONALIST PARTY HAS DONE 6oi 
 
 To-day lie can stand erect as becomes a free citizen 
 in a free community, and although the cliarter of liis 
 lil)erty may not yet be complete, he has derived solid 
 protection from the legislation of 1881, and the subse- 
 ([uent legislation wliich the action — the agitation as it 
 has 1)('cn called — of these men has helped to acconi- 
 plisli. 
 
 My liOi'ds, then, witli a rcstricited narrow franchise 
 Ireland spoke with an uncertain, with a stilled voice; 
 now with fuller franchise Ireland speaks as a practically 
 united people. 
 
 Then, my Lords, secret organisations burrowed be- 
 neath the surface of society and constituted a great 
 political and social factor in the land. 
 
 To-day, tliank God for it, the great mass of the 
 people have been won to bending their energies and 
 lixing their hopes upon constitutional means of redress. 
 Til en, my Lords, the great mass of the people were 
 jiosscssed with the feeling of despair for past efforts 
 made aiid unre(|uited sacrifices ; to-day hope is strong 
 and is buoyant in their breasts. 
 
 llicn they looked upon their countrymen in this 
 hind with distrust if not with hate ; to-day they hold 
 out the hand of brotherly friendship, anxious to let 
 bygones be bygones, and to bury for ever memories of 
 the persecutions and miseries of bygone days. 
 
 Then, my Lords — perhaps the most hopeful change 
 of all — the peo})le of this country, busied with their 
 own concerns, knew little and thought little of and cared 
 little for Ireland. Now they have taken this c[uestion 
 to heart, and, recognising the truth that misrule in 
 Ireland means weakness to the empire, they have in 
 recent years manifested an interest in the solution of 
 this (juestion formerly unknown. 
 
6o2 CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS 
 
 My Lords, I have come to an end. I cannot sit 
 down without expressing the obligation I owe to your 
 Lordships, not only for an attentive, hut an indulgent 
 hearing. I have spoken not merely as an advocate. I 
 have spoken for the land of my birth. But T feel, 
 and profoundly feel, that I have l)een speaking for 
 and in the best interests of England also, wheie 
 my years of lal)orious life have been passed, and 
 where I have received kindness, consideration, and 
 regard, which I shall be glad to make some attempt 
 to repay. 
 
 My Lords, my colleagues and myself have had a 
 responsible duty. We have had to defend not merely 
 the leaders of a nation, but the nation itself To defend 
 the leaders of a nation wliom it w\as sought to crush ; to 
 defend a nation whose hopes it was sought to dash to 
 the ground. This incpiiry, 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. My Lords, 1 claim leave to say, that to-day 
 the positions are reversed. We are the accusers ; the 
 accused are there. 
 
 I hope — I believe — tliat this inquiry in its present 
 stage has served, and in its futiire development, will serve 
 more purposes even than the vindication of individuals. 
 It will remove l)aneful misconceptions as to the character, 
 the actions, the motives, the aims of the Irisli people, 
 and of the leaders of the Trisli people. It will set 
 earnest minds — thank God there are many earnest and 
 honest minds in this land — thinking for themselves upon 
 this question. It will soften ancient prejudices. It 
 will hasten the day of true union, and of i-eal reconcilia- 
 tion between the people of Ireland and the people of 
 
XX 11 1 IVirAT THE NATIONALIST PylRTV HAS DONE 603 
 
 Great Britain ; and Avith the advent of that union and 
 reconciliation, will be dispelled, and dispelled for ever, 
 the cloud — the weighty cloud — that has long rested on 
 the history of a noble race, and dimmed the glory of a 
 mighty empire. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Abraham, Mr. Williaiu, 394. 
 
 Ay>s('iit(H'isni, 10, G;5. 
 
 Agil.'itnrs in Loutli, 84. 
 
 ARrnrian crime, 52 ; recurs with distress, 
 ()2 ; liistory of, 53, et srq. ; laud-grab- 
 irg, 57 ; chasing of tenants, 63. 
 
 Agriculture, fall in values, 295. 
 
 Aha!) V. Nahoth, 58. 
 
 Alker, Judge, 452. 
 
 American connection, the story of — Emi- 
 gration, 438 ; Davitt's visit, 441 ; Mr. 
 J'arnell's visit, 444 ; Eeception Com- 
 mittee, 451 ; New York address, 453 ; 
 IMadisoii S(iuare speech, tlie distress 
 in Ireland, 455 ; founding of American 
 League, 463 ; the Conventions — New 
 York, 471 ; Buffalo, 474 ; Le Caron, 
 
 476 : Mr. Parnell no revolutionist, 
 
 477 ; supposed secret convention, 482 ; 
 Chicago convention, 486, 500 ; the 
 Y.C. circulars, 484-490 ; Washington 
 Convention, 490 ; Philadelphia Con- 
 vention, IVirnell's telegram to, 500-502 ; 
 l?oslon, 503. 
 
 American League, address, 463 ; con- 
 stitution of, 464. 
 
 American monej- for political agitation 
 and rents, 199. 
 
 American Relief Fund, 153. 
 
 Amnesty movement, 5S2. 
 
 ArrearsAct (1882), 163, 261, 282, 292. 
 
 Asqnitli, iMr., services acknowledged, 246. 
 
 Assessments, high, 62. 
 
 Attorney-General, the, conduct of the 
 case, 21 ; charges of criminal consjiiracy 
 not in original lilicl, 22 ; presents his 
 cas(> without method, 25 ; and as if 
 Ireland were an Eden before 1879, 26; 
 accused Lan(l League of i>lotting for 
 an Irish Republic, 28 ; wrong in sug- 
 gesting no crime Ijefore 1879, 53 ; badly 
 instructed, 57 ; his statement not his- 
 torical, 74 ; crimes, classilied, said to 
 be uul^nown, 7l) ; attempt to show 
 crime not connected with distress, 95 ; 
 
 conspiracy theory refuted, 226, 227 ; 
 outrages, leaders, " no time " for, 227 ; 
 wrong in saying crime never denounced, 
 234 ; connects diminished crime with 
 wrong cause, 248 ; reckless charges, 
 250 ; exceptional advantages of Irish 
 tenants, contested, 265 ; absurd pic- 
 ture of Miss Reynolds's action, 274 ; 
 statement about Brennan, Boytoii, and 
 others contested, 280 ; want of author- 
 ity for statement on Parnell manifesto 
 after Phoenix Park murders, 283, 284 : 
 makes "a hero " of Scral) Nally, 396 ; 
 noevidence to sustain allegation against 
 P. J. Sheridan, 398 ; pencil-marks, 
 Pigott's statement to Soames, 21st 
 October 1888, 537; imperfectly in- 
 structed to contend no cause for crime 
 but Ijcague, 572. 
 Authorities cited — Argyll, Duke of, 157, 
 158; Bageual, 7,198 ; Barrington, Mr., 
 71, 72 ; Barrington, Sir U., 89; Ben- 
 nett, Mr., 78; Bentham, 313; Ber- 
 keley, Bisliop, 96 ; Bessborough, Lord, 
 256 ; Blackburne,Mr., 71 ; Bright, Mr., 
 87, 88 ; Brown, Rev. D., 89 ; Buller, 
 Sir Rcdvers, 319 ; Burke, 4 ; Burke, 
 E., Vindu-ia: Galliac, 46, 196 ; Busli, 
 55; Cliamberlaiii, Mr., 164, 597; 
 Charlemont, Lord, 59, 96; Chare, Lord. 
 96; Daley, Mr., 390; Day, Justice. 
 
 69 ; Devon, Lord, 257 ; Dobbs, 96 '; 
 DufTerin, Lord, 42 ; Foster, Mr. Leslie, 
 
 70 ; Forster, Mr. W. p]., 155, 156, 
 242; Fox, Mr., Mansion-llonse Report, 
 144; Fronde, 42, 45, 47 ; Olas- 
 fjnw ITerald, 493 ; Gordon, General, 
 147 ; Grimshaw, Dr., 150 ; Hancock, 
 Dr. Neilson, 92, 111, 151; Hancock, 
 Mr., 102, 110, 217 ; llartington, Lord, 
 32, 92 ; Lecky, 42, 54 ; Leonard, Mr., 
 85, 97, 129 ; Lewis, Sir G. Cornewall, 
 57, 65-79 ; Local Government Board 
 (Ireland), 117, 133 ; Mackintosh, Sir 
 James, 196; Najiier, Josci'li, 101; 
 
6o6 
 
 INDEX 
 
 O'Brien, R. Barry, 81 ; O'Connor, 
 Eev. N., 77; Pallas, Chief Baron, 
 391 ; I'igott, Chief Baron, 389 ; I'al- 
 nierston. Lord, 47 ; lliclanond Coni- 
 niissioners,136, e.t seq. ; Rochefort, Col., 
 72 ; Russell, Lord John, 93, 118 ; 
 Shee, Mr. Justice, 103; Skelton, 96; 
 Smith, Goldwin, 49 ; Swift, Dean, 
 96 ; Wakefield, 73, 97 ; Walsh, Dr., 
 266 ; Woulfe, Chief Baron, 38 ; 
 Young, Arthur, 96. 
 
 Ball, Inspector, 333. 
 Ballydehob cases, 341. 
 Barry, Mr. John, 435. 
 Beach, nee Le Caron. 
 Bessborough, Lord, 256. 
 Biggar, Mr., 166 ; case against. 419. 
 Blake, Mrs., 344. 
 
 Boland, Mr. James and V. C, 506. 
 Boland, Mr. M., 499. 
 Bottrell case, 345. 
 Boycott, Captain, 338. 
 Boycotting, so in tithe times, 81 ; not 
 in itself illegal, 215 ; Captain Boycott, 
 338 ; cases, 344, 347, 411. 
 Boy ton, Mr., arrested, 239 ; ca.se con- 
 sidered, 400 ; at Philadeljihia, 501. 
 Brennau, T., arrested, 240 ; and O'Shea, 
 277 ; case considered, 403 ; the In- 
 vincibles, 517. 
 Bright, Mr., member of 1852 committee, 
 87 ; his later recognition a fact in Mr. 
 Parnell's favour, 200. 
 Brown, Mr. G. E., rent cases, 325. 
 Buckley (informer), 347, 348. 
 Buller, Sir Redvers, 317-319. 
 Burke, Edmund, his indictment saying 
 
 explained, 4. 
 Burke (informer), 357, 359. 
 Butt, Mr. Isaac, 167, 175 ; his Land 
 
 Bills, 203, 255. 
 Byrne, case considered, 401 ; at Phila- 
 delphia, 501 ; supposed interview with 
 Parnell, 580 ; the cheque incident 
 reviewed, 583, et seq. ; letters, 585, 
 588, 589. 
 
 Caiud, Sir James, 315. 
 
 Campbell, Mr. Henry, 241. 
 
 Canning, Father, denounces Feerick's 
 murder, 353. 
 
 Carey, 517 ; evidence, 522; Egan's letters 
 to, 576, 578. 
 
 Carnarvon, Lord, as Lord Lieutenant, 
 9 ; interview with Mr. J. M'Carthy 
 and Mr. Parnell, 10 ; calumnies pub- 
 lished after that event, 11. 
 
 Carrol, 477. 
 
 Catholics supposed to be rebels, QQ. 
 
 Cattle outrages, 248. 
 
 Cavendish, Lord, 282. 
 Chamberlain, 276. 
 
 Charges against Land League based 
 on assassination and outrage, 562 ; 
 incitements, no steps to stop or 
 condemn outrages, 568 ; verbal con- 
 demnation insincere, 570 ; no other 
 cause to account for crime, 572 ; funds 
 u.sed to help criminals, 572 ; outrages 
 l)aid for by funds, 572 ; Sheridan and 
 Boy ton organised, and so were to put 
 down outrages, 574 ; Inviucibles were 
 branch of League, 575 ; Parnell afraid 
 of oU'ending Invincibles, 579 ; Mr. 
 Parnell gave money to Byrne, 583. 
 Cliarsley, Mr. A., evidence of, 294. 
 Cheipie (Iloran), story of, 415 ; Ryan, 
 419 ; the Byrne, reviewed, 583, cl seq. 
 Clan-na-Gael, 451, 469, 483. 
 Clanricarde, Lord, 346, 372 ; Chief 
 
 Baron Pallas on, 391. 
 Clearances, 151. 
 Clearing estates, 60. 
 Clergy denounce crime, 353, 355, 360, 
 
 385. 
 Cloncurry, Lord, tithes, 82. 
 Coercion Act, Mr. Forster's, 242. 
 Coercion Act 1881, 229 ; of 1882, 302. 
 Coercion, measures of, for 100 years, 
 
 64. 
 Coercive Acts between 1800 and 1824, 
 
 65. 
 Colfey (informer,) 394. 
 Coleman (informer), 333, 337, 347. 
 Collins, General P. A., 486. 
 Collins, Mr., 471. 
 Combination, 77. 
 
 Commercial repression predisposing cause 
 of crime, 41 ; Lecky on, 42 ; Dulferin, 
 43. 
 Commission, Bessborough, 256. 
 Commission, Cowper, 315. 
 Commission — Sir G. (.!. Lewis's list of 
 crime and present incpiiry, 76 ; issue 
 of, depends on theory of Land League, 
 166 ; why Land League documents not 
 l)resented to, before, 213. 
 Commission, The Special — Sittings, 
 number of, 1 ; witnesses, number of, 
 1 ; e.xperts, the five, 1 ; accused, who 
 they are, 2 ; accusers, a company 
 hostile to Ireland and Irish people, 5 ; 
 trying a revolution, 4 ; accusations, 
 the, circumstances of, 8 ; broadly 
 stated, 12 ; why did not the Govern- 
 ment i>rosecute ? 13, 14; the Davitt 
 and Parnell prosecutions of 1879 and 
 1880-81, 13 ; speeches of former trials 
 used again, 13 ; prosecution of i>ub- 
 licans, carmen, newsvendors, ami 
 M.P.'s, 14 ; how the case conducted, 
 
INDEX 
 
 607 
 
 the Irish police in London, magis- 
 trutes, tjeci'L't docnnients, sjiies, gaols 
 opened, 15, 16 ; convicts' hopes 
 aronsed, Itj ; disadvantages of ac- 
 cnsed, 17 ; game of surprises, 17 ; no 
 notice of witnesses, 18 ; Walsli called 
 out of turn, 18 ; iioliceman's insinua- 
 tion to, li) ; Le Caron, 19 ; reasons 
 for sui'()rise unsatisfactory, 20 ; case 
 jiressed raneorously, 20 ; no generos- 
 ity to accused, 21, 22; Dougiierty 
 incident, 21 ; facts repeated to 
 blacken Irish jieople, 22 ; criminal 
 conspiracy not in original libels, 22 ; 
 evidence, great part irrelevant, 1 ; 
 widened by a departure, 23 ; 
 introduces hearsay fourth - haiul 
 evidence, 23, 2-1 ; method, absence 
 of, 21 ; real issue to be extracteil, 
 21 ; political retrospect necessary, 
 25 ; Attoiiiey-General gave no clue to 
 Irish i>osition, 25 ; false pictures of 
 Ireland as an Eden before 1879, 2(i, 
 27 ; distress in 1879, 27 ; sketch of 
 jiolitical movements, 29 ; British fair- 
 play to foreign countries in i)atriotic 
 btruggles, 30 ; Grattan's Parliament, 
 30 ; a good germ, 31 ; division of 
 Irish people root of dilliculty, 31 ; 
 governing classes looked to England, 
 not to Irish opinion, 32 ; not aiipointed 
 to try simple boycotting cases, 216 ; 
 trying history of ten years' revolution 
 in Ireland, 591 ; will remove baneful 
 misconceptions, 602. 
 
 Committee, Lords, 1839, 83 ; Commons, 
 83. 
 
 Compensation for Disturbance Bill, 154 ; 
 rejected, 158 ; helps the League, 219, 
 229. 
 
 Couaty, Rev. T. J., 174, 481. 
 
 Condon, Mr. J. T., 395 ; case against, 
 418. 
 
 Connair's case, 343. 
 
 Conspiracy, law of, does not apply to 
 League, 225. 
 
 Conspiracy not originally charged, 22 ; 
 doctrine of, 23. 
 
 Constabulary— M'Carthy, 250 ; O'Brien, 
 lloyse, M'Ardle, Roger, 251 ; Coulsou, 
 Kent, 252 ; Kelly, Harvey, Newall, 
 253. 
 
 Cork crimes examined, 339 ; murders in, 
 350. 
 
 Corydon, 289. 
 
 Costcllo case, 387. 
 
 Coursey, P. C, 374 ; evidence of, 375. 
 
 Cowper, Lord, 282, 314. 
 
 Crawford, Mr. Sharmau, 255. 
 
 Crime, falls, when hope of redress, 37 ; 
 unconstitutional movements follow 
 
 desjiair, 38 ; authorities on predis- 
 posing causes of, four causes, 4U ; acts 
 of cruelty by a Iciudly jjeojde, 51 ; 
 agrarian, 52 ; mistake to dwell unduly 
 on jieople's crime (Lecky), 52 ; same 
 conditions i>roduced crime before 1879, 
 51-50 ; land - graljbing, 57; Ahab v. 
 Nabotli, 58 ; Oakboys, 59 ; moderated 
 in n(nlli by tenant rigid,, 59 ; Steel- 
 boys, 60 ; Baron Fletcher on crime in 
 1811, 62, 63; Ribbonism, 63; indi- 
 vidual sevi'rity causes, 70 ; people 
 assign cause for, 70 ; oiten resistance 
 to starvation, 71 ; division and object 
 of, 73-78 ; figures for 1833, more 
 crime less distress, 79 ; Committees 
 of 1839 andl852, 83; "crimeof thecom- 
 munity, 87;" crime not ilue to Tenants 
 League, 89 ; figures for 1S49-5U, 91 ; 
 Rilibon Society in 1870 - 71, 92 ; 
 where tenant right less crime, 112; 
 League circular against outrages, 
 231 ; crime openly denounced, 234 ; 
 O'Malley's evidence, 235 ; crime worst 
 during arrest of leaders, 244, 247 ; 
 agrarian statistics, 216 ; Land Act 
 anil Arrears Act diminish, 248 ; 
 PJicenix Park murders, 282 ; effect of 
 Arrears Act on, 293 ; table of ciinies 
 during and after League, 294 ; " nam- 
 ing" in speeches, 330; Captain 
 Plunkett's evidence, 331 ; Captain 
 Slack's trumpery cases, 336, 337; crime 
 in Jlayo exaiiiinc<l, ti36, 37(i ; Cork, 
 339, 350 ; Cialway, 342, 356 ; Kerry, 
 346, 376 ; distress and crime, 391 ; 
 tlie Invincildes, 516, ct scq.; denounced, 
 569. 
 
 Crossmolina consjiiracy, 333, 337. 
 
 Cullen, Michael, house searched, 251. 
 
 Curley, 517. 
 
 Daley, Mr., 388, 390. 
 
 Davis, Inspector, 332. 
 
 Davis, T.,33. 
 
 Davitt, Mr. Michael, 171 ; his recollec- 
 tions and aims, 172, 173 ; why he did 
 not sign the Land programme of 1880, 
 2U9 ; reference to antecedents, 221 ; 
 head of League, 229 ; circular, 230 ; 
 at twenty -live meetings denounces 
 crime, 234 ; arrested, 237 ; ellect of 
 in America, 466 ; letter to Stundurd 
 on Phoenix Park murders, 285 ; re- 
 monstrates with Curtin's neighbours, 
 384 ; courage, 408 ; visits America, 
 441 ; letter to John Ferguson, 493 ; 
 at Chicago, 508, 511 ; replies to 
 Fumerty, 509. 
 
 Deasy's Act, 258. 
 
 Deasy, Mr., 508. 
 
6oS 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Delaney, 223 ; and Invinciblcs, 291, 
 
 400, 407, 517; cross-exaniiuation, 519; 
 
 uiiconoboiated story, 520. 
 Delaney tlie informer, 1, 17. 
 Develin, Hon. J. E., address to Mr. 
 
 Parnell, 452. 
 Devon, Lord, 257. 
 Devoy, John, secret report summarised, 
 
 444 ; on Bnllalo Convention, 475 ; 
 
 letter, 477-480. 
 Dillon, Jolm, 170, 174 ; arrested, 237 ; 
 
 case against, 410 ; in America, 462. 
 Distress and crime, 391. 
 Distress of 1878, 1879, 1880, details of, 
 
 117, 118. 
 Disturbances in Ireland, causes of (Sir 
 
 G. C. Lewis), 66 ; ultimate causes 
 
 further back in history, 68. 
 Don, the O'Conor, 257. 
 Doncf^al, Marcjuis of, clears estate, 60. 
 Dougherty, I'rofessor, on Old Bailey trial, 
 
 21. 
 Downing, l\Ir., 256. 
 Dowse, Baron, 257. 
 DufTy, Sir Charles Gavin, 34, 35 ; starts 
 
 Tenant League, 35, 36. 
 
 Egan, Fatlicr, 374. 
 
 Egau, Patrick, 166 ; goes to Paris, 239 ; 
 and L(! Caron, 479 ; the Invinciblcs, 
 517 ; coriespondence with Pigott, 547; 
 and Byrne, 573 ; reference to, 577 ; 
 letters to Carey, 578. 
 
 Ejectments froni 1879 to 1881, 114; 
 details of, 161 ; and crime, 247. 
 
 Election, general, of 1885, English and 
 Irish franchises compared, 306 ; Irish 
 elections, 308-311 ; petitions, 312. 
 
 Elections of 1885-89, change of Govern- 
 ment in 1886, 11 ; policy of recon- 
 ciliation, 11 ; country not ripe for 
 Home Rule in 1886, 12. 
 
 Enngration due to clearances, 60. 
 
 Emigration in 1879, 120. 
 
 Emmett, Bobert, 32. 
 
 p]ncnmbered Estates Act, sales, rents 
 increased on leases falling in, 258. 
 
 Eughmd, Ireland content good ior, 39. 
 
 English visitor, how blinded in Ireland 
 (liaron Fletcher), 6 4. 
 
 I'lUthusiasts, need of, 171. 
 
 I'jvidcucc dealt with, Walsh, 18 ; Le 
 Caron, 19, 23, 24. 
 
 Ex-suspect title of dignity, 243. 
 
 Farpagher, 405, 407 ; the Invinciblcs, 
 
 519. 
 Fawcett, P. C, 413. 
 Fenianism, its origin, 36 ; treatment of 
 
 Mr. II. Mathews for opinion of, 37 ; 
 
 crime fell during Fenianism, 37. 
 
 Finnerty, Mr., at Ogden Grove, 509, 
 511. 
 
 Firings at person and dwellings, 248. 
 
 Fitzwilliam, Lord, rent cases, 326. 
 
 Flynn, Mr. J. C, case against, 417. 
 
 Foley, Mr. P. J., case against, 412. 
 
 Ford, Mr. Patrick, 463, 473, 475 ; de- 
 nounced by Parnell, signs call to 
 Philadelphia Convention, 499. 
 
 Forged letters, the pith, without them 
 no Commission, 2 ; apart from, no 
 evidence of crinunal complicity, 24 ; 
 only foundation for connecting Irish 
 M.P.'s with Invinciblcs, 291, 516 ; 
 init forward with criminal reckless- 
 ness, 524 ; Mr. Parnell's inaction, 
 525 ; behind Houston and behind 
 Pigott, 528 ; IMr. Houston's proceed- 
 ings, 529 ; Mr. Pigott approached, 
 530 ; letters olTered to liOrd Ilarting- 
 ton and Pall Mall Gazette, 530 ; 
 Houston destroys his letters, 531 ; 
 sale to The Tivicf!, moneys paid, 532 ; 
 second and third batch, 533 ; no 
 inquiry, 533 ; origin not traced, 535 ; 
 Times compact, 536 ; Pigott's first 
 statement to Soames, 537 ; letters 
 held back, 539 ; story of the three 
 batches renewed, 541-544; forgery 
 of third batch adiuitted, 545 ; inter- 
 view and confession of I'igott, 551 ; 
 Mr. Macdonald's ojnnion, 555 ; Pagan's 
 letters, 557 ; striking jiaiallelisms be- 
 tween genuine and forged letters, 558- 
 560. 
 
 Forster, Mr. W. E., tribute to, 153; 
 his Compensation for Disturbance Bill, 
 154 ; on evictions, 156 ; Disturbance 
 Bill rejected by House of Lords, 158 ; 
 Belief of Distress Bill, 159, 208 ; 
 Coercion Act defended, 242 ; resigna- 
 tion of, 282 ; correspondence with 
 Pigott, 545. 
 
 Fottrell, Mr., 403, 407. 
 
 Franchise restricted till 1885, 50 ; Eng- 
 land and Ireland compared, 306. 
 
 Galway, crimes exanuned, 342 ; murders 
 
 in, 356. 
 George, Henry, 283. 
 Gilhooly, Mr. J., case, 413, 414. 
 Gladstone, Mr., 254 ; his Irish policy 
 
 accei)ted by 99 per cent of Irish race, 
 
 507 ; citations from, to bolster np 
 
 charges, 564. 
 Gray, Sir John, 255. 
 Griltin, Canon, 339, 342. 
 
 llARUiNCiTON, Sir. E. , case, 409. 
 Hairington, Air. T., 347 ; case against, 
 426. 
 
INDEX 
 
 609 
 
 Harris, Mr. ]\[., arrested, 239 ; docu- 
 ments, 252 ; case against, 425. 
 
 Harvest lalioiir in England, loss to 
 t!oniiau!:;lit, 151. 
 
 Healy, j\fr. IMaurice, 274 ; case, 413. 
 
 Hualy.Mr, T., and Land Bill, 260 ; Healy 
 clause, 2G3 ; case against, 420 ; signs 
 call for Gliicago Convention, 487. 
 
 Hegarty case, 339. 
 
 Herl)crt, Mr., 25(). 
 
 Heron, Mr., 25,5. 
 
 Hill, Lord Arthur, 255. 
 
 Hoarly's case, 343. 
 
 llonn> Utile Association, 1C7, 16S ; its 
 lirogr.unnie, 109. 
 
 Homo llule League, 301. 
 
 Horan, Timothy, 238, 250, 334, 414. 
 
 Ilonghiug cattle began in 1711, 54. 
 
 House of iiords rejects Conipeusati(ni 
 JJill, 158 ; rehuked by Commons for 
 suggesting Inquiry into Land Act 
 1881, 271. 
 
 Houses, levelling of, 71. 
 
 Houston, Mr., It!, 430 ; the forged letter 
 story, 529 ; destroys correspondence, 
 531. 
 
 Hovels of the Irish poor, 1 15, 146. 
 
 Hughes, ]'. C, 365. 
 
 Hussey, Mr., and Costello case, 387. 
 
 Hyues, 477. 
 
 iNfiLis, Mr., 1. . * 
 
 Ingram, J. Kells, 34. 
 
 Insurrection Acts, G5. 
 
 luvincihles, first reference to, 291 ; num- 
 bers connected witli, 292 ; evidence of 
 Delaney, etc., 518-520 ; of F.arr.agher, 
 510; members hanged, 521; tlic 
 otliers, 522 ; Sheridan and Boyton, 
 574 : supposed connection with In- 
 vin'-ililes, 575, 579, 581, 583. 
 
 Irelaml, the rei)icseutation of, analysed, 
 •") ; no coiuity without Nationalist 
 incnilier, 3 ; ]U'eseut representation 
 nnjiaralleled, 4 ; absence of contact 
 with Irisli people caus(! of misgoveni- 
 nii'ut, (! ; two powers in, the law and 
 popular leaders, 10 ; accejits policy 
 of reconciliation, 11 ; Irisli people 
 cannot be put down by force, 11 ; 
 HoMic Rule, country not ripe for, in 
 1886, 12 : Irish dilliculties deep in 
 Irish history, 25 ; political move- 
 ments in, 29, ei xcq. ; p.arallels, 29 ; 
 root of evil, divided classes, 32 ; 
 Young Ireland movement, 33 ; 
 its relapse, 34 ; restricted franchises 
 of 1852, an Independent opposi- 
 tion, 35 ; a shameful story, 36 ; another 
 rcla]ise, and Feninrusm, 36 ; crime 
 fell iluriug Fenianism, 37 ; remedial 
 
 measures from 1869 to 1874 followed 
 unconstitutional movement, 37, 38 ; 
 content good for Ireland and England 
 alilce, 39 ; four causes of crime, 40 ; 
 commercial restrictions, 41-43 ; Penal 
 Code, 44 ; corporation reform, 44 ; 
 Fronde on Penal Code, 45 ; landlord 
 liower, 46-48; misgovenunent, 48, 49 ; 
 absenteeism, 49, 50 ; a peojile's crimes, 
 52 ; Whiteboyism, 54-56 ; Land-grab- 
 bing, 57 ; Oakboys, cause of, 59 ; Steel- 
 boys, juries acquit, 00 ; Presbyterian 
 emigration, 61 ; live times of distress 
 and two of famine in the century, Gl ; 
 high rents, 61 ; tenants driven to poll, 
 63 ; how English visitor blinded, 64 ; 
 Coercive Acts between 1800 and 1882, 
 65 ; Sir U. C. Lewis's in(pury, 65 ; 
 select committee of 1824, 65, GS ; 
 Whiteboyism explained, 70, 71 ; 
 wretchedness and tranquillity, tlie 
 robust resist, 72 ; division and objects 
 of crime, preventive aims, 73-75; 
 Whiteboyism a vast trades union, 76 ; 
 old crimes classifuNl like modern ones, 
 76 ; Sir C. Russell's auecilote of Irish 
 peas.ant, 77 ; conspiracy and 0])en 
 organisatioTi, 78-79 ; the tithe war 
 and Thomas Drumniond,80, 81 ; anti- 
 tithe war sjiontaneous, 83 ; Parlia- 
 mentary committees, 83, 84; securities 
 suggested, 85 ; report and evidence, 
 85 ; Land Question at the root, 86 ; 
 bad seasons, rents behind, 87 ; ribbon- 
 ism, 88 ; nuirders in 1849-50, 91 ; 
 outbreak of 1870-71, 92; crime 
 mainly restricted to distressed dis- 
 tricts, 95 ; no land reform until 1870, 
 act of 1870 of no ell'ect, 97 ; what con- 
 fiscation meant. 98 ; Devon commis- 
 sion, 98-103; Deasy'.s Act, 105; 
 effect of Encumbered Estates Act, 
 lOG ; tennnt right lessened crime, 112; 
 savings bank fallacy examineil, 114; 
 landlord ejectments, 114, 115; three 
 interests, 115 ; distress in 1879, de- 
 tails of and extracts, 117-134 ; poor 
 relief figures, 117 ; do not fully show 
 distress, 118 ; Richmond Commission, 
 135-144 ; names of Irish commissioners 
 added, 135 ; Mr. Fox's Mansion-House 
 Report, 144 ; General Gordon on state 
 of south-west Ireland, 147 ; Lord 
 John Russell on land - hunger and 
 homicides, 148, 149 ; potato crop, 
 statistics for 1876 to 1879, 149 ; 
 gcner.al crops, 150 ; what the English 
 Government did, Mr. Lowther, 153 ; 
 Mr. Forster, tril)ute to, 153; liis Com- 
 pensation for Disturbance Bill, 154- 
 158 ; Relief of Distress Bill, 159 ; 
 
 'i R 
 
6io 
 
 INDEX 
 
 wliat Irish landlords doing, 160 ; 
 swarms of ejectment notices, 161 ; 
 what would have occurred in liia> 
 circumstances in England, 162 ; action 
 of Irish leaders justiliable, 162, 163 ; 
 enactments due to their action, 163; 
 sketches of Land League leaders, 166- 
 177 ; what brought them together ? 
 T}ie Times theory, 174 ; action in 
 Parliament, the i\Iutiny Bill, Prisoners' 
 Bill, 175, 176 ; Mr. Parnell aimed at 
 creating Irish oidnion and an Irish 
 party, 177; Lantl League history, 18U, 
 el scq. ; why were not oHicial docu- 
 ments of licague presented before? 213 ; 
 its avowed means not illegal, 213; 
 boycotting examples, 215 ; laud-grab- 
 bing, 217 ; League assisted by action 
 of Lords, 218 ; Penian opposition, 219- 
 221 ; league circulars, organisation but 
 no crime, 230 ; crime denounced, 234 ; 
 O'Malley }jroves it, 235 ; League oflicers 
 arrested, 237 - 240 ; Mr. Forster's 
 defence of Coercion Act, 242 ; etl'ect 
 of arrests, 243, 244 ; "No Kent Mani- 
 festo," 244; agrarian crimes, 246, 247 ; 
 why crime diminished, 248 ; searches 
 and seizures, 250, ct scq. ; Land Act 
 1881, history of, 254 ; defects, 263 ; 
 summary of previous elforts, 255 ; no 
 land bill between 1870-1880, 256 ; 
 Bessborough Commission, 256 ; ob- 
 stacles to Laud Act of 1881, 260, 261 ; 
 Healy clause, 263 ; not retrospective, 
 265 ; Arrears Act, 261, 292 ; Kilmain- 
 ham interviews, Parnell and O'Shea, 
 278 ; Parnell released, 281 ; Phcenix 
 Park murders, 282 ; nuinifesto, 283 ; 
 Davitt's letter, 285 ; forged letters 
 only suggestion connecting Irish mem- 
 bers with Invincibles, 291 ; National 
 League, formation and rules, 296-304 ; 
 franchise of 1885, 307 ; elections in 
 Ireland, 308-31 1 ; Cowper Commission, 
 314-320; Buller, Sir Ilcdvers, on 
 National League, 320 ; reductions of 
 rent in Land Court, 322-326 ; nanung 
 in sjieeches, 329 ; l*luid<ett on National 
 League, 331 ; Slaclc's evidence,- 335 ; 
 Mayo cases, 336, 376 ; Cork cases, 
 339, 350 ; Galway, 342, 356 ; Kerry, 
 346, 376 ; distress and crime, 391 ; 
 Irish members accused, 393 ; cases 
 of Sheridan, Bryne, Boyton, Bren- 
 nan, and Egan treated, 397-407 ; de- 
 tails of cliarges against M.P.'s, 409, 
 et seq.; the Invincibles, 516, ct seq. ; 
 the forged letters, 524 ; Mr. Parnell's 
 inaction, 525 ; two parties in, 596 ; 
 Mr. Chamberlain on "the Castle," 
 597, 598 ; voluntary action in England 
 
 but not in Ireland, 599 ; what Irish 
 leaders have done in ten years, 600. 
 
 I. II. B. (Irish Iteiiublican Brotherhood) 
 nuinifebto against parliamentary action, 
 219 ; resolution against League, 221 ; 
 executive jirotest, 223. 
 
 Irish Members, names given, 393, 394 ; of 
 450 speeches put in only one from 
 M.P., 396 ; details of charges against, 
 4U9-436. 
 
 Irisli Wudd throws cold water on New 
 York Convention, 471 ; Mr. Parnell 
 and, 472 ; Bullalo Convention, no 
 organ, 475. 
 
 jAMiiS, Sir If., 18 ; case ^\hen Attorney- 
 General, 21. 
 
 KAVAN.Uiii, Mr. A. M'M., 257. 
 
 Kavanagh, Mr., an American, 459. 
 
 Kearney, 357-359. 
 
 Keuniare, Lord, 380. 
 
 Kenny, l)r., arrested, 240 ; affidavit. 
 
 League books, 241 ; case against, 414. 
 Kerry, crimes examined, 346 ; murders 
 
 in, 376. 
 Kerry Sentinel, denouncing crime, 349, 
 
 380 ; quoted, 386, 388. 
 Kettle, Mr. Andrew J., 180. 
 Kilmainham Treaty, 276 ; O'Shea on, 
 
 278, 279. 
 Knipe, Mr., 315 ; his report, 315. 
 
 Labour and Industrial Union, 301. 
 
 Ladies' Land League, 273, 333. 
 
 Land Acts— Deasy's Act 1860, 258; 
 Encumbered Estates Act, 105 ; Act of 
 1870, 107; defects, 109-139, 142, 
 258 ; Act of 1881, charter of Irish 
 tenant, 248; history and defects, 254- 
 271 ; test cases, 269. 
 
 Land Court, reductions, cases and iletails, 
 322-326. 
 
 Land-grabl)ing, 57; dislike to stranger, 
 63, 76, 217. 
 
 Land League not cause of 1879 troubles, 
 27; Attorney-Ueneral's charge against, 
 28 ; agrarian crime before, 53 ; how it 
 lessened crime, 80 ; what linked its 
 leaders, 165 ; estalili^hed, 179 ; resolu- 
 tions, 180, 181 ; committee and oliicers, 
 183 ; appeal to Irish race, 183-187 ; 
 rules, 187, 189 ; address to Irish farmers, 
 190, 191 ; Ulster tenants invited to 
 lay aside religious dillerences in si)ecial 
 address, 192-194 ; if criminal con- 
 spiracy, singular features, 195; evils 
 may arise in the work of reform, 195, 
 196 ; in America, 198 ; American 
 money for organisation and rents, 199 ; 
 land reform programme, a remarkable 
 
INDEX 
 
 6ii 
 
 tlocmneiit, 2111-207; Mr. Paniell's 
 speech on, 210-212; why were 
 tliese (locnitients not jiroiluced before ? 
 213 ; its avowed means not illpp;al, 
 213 ; boycott inp, 215 ; lan<l-gr,-*lil>iiip, 
 21 f^; liC.iijiie did not nialco lieadwny 
 till Dislnil.anc.. lijll rejccled, 21 S ; 
 I. I!. !!. iii.iiiil'rsfo against ]>arliani('ntary 
 actinii, 21'.i; Mr. O'llanlan's resoln- 
 lion nijainst Lcarfue, 221 ; consiiiracy 
 law dni's notajijily to, 22') ; niifonndeil 
 cliartie, 227 : Ijcague's actual described 
 wfirk, 22'' ; circular to orLjanisers, 
 230 ; leading men connected witli, 
 23(5 ; ollicers arrested, 237-240 ; sup- 
 pressed, 240 ; confusion follows, fate 
 of books, etc., 241 ; raids and searclies 
 yield little, 240 ; table of crimes dur- 
 ing and after Lengue, 294 ; Coleman's 
 evidence, 334 ; no evidence outrages 
 ]iaid for by, 334 ; Captain Slack's 
 jioor cases, 335 ; cliarge against, 
 5(12 ; tlie nine cliargcs reviewed, 562- 
 592. 
 Landlord jiowcr a cause of crime, 46-48 ; 
 
 in )iolitics, %'.i, G4. 
 LaTidlords, Protestant and absentee, 66 ; 
 despots, ()7 ; until 18S1 no real check 
 on, (IS ; neillier erect nor repair build- 
 ings, 73 ; badly hurt and then mend, 
 78. 
 
 I,an<l Purchase Act 1885, 163. 
 
 Lanil Kcform, jirogramnie of League, 201. 
 
 Land system in Ireland despotic, 47 ; 
 produces wretchedness, 48 ; Ireland 
 and England contrasted, 67, 115 ; 
 Ireland condemned before and since 
 the Union, 95 ; names of authoiitics 
 condemning it, '^^ ; no reform till 
 1870, 97. 
 
 Land, the demand for, 43-62. 
 
 Lane, I\Ir. .1. W., case, 413. 
 
 Law and slavery, 68. 
 
 Leaders of Irish people, their action 
 justifiable, 162, 163. 
 
 Leaseholders, 276. 
 
 Le Caron, 403, 404, 407, 451, 469 ; de- 
 spatches valueless, 470 ; alleged inter- 
 view with Mr. Parnell, 476 ; Devoy 
 letter examined, 478 d srq.\ his story 
 tested, 513, r^ -'^7.; evidence against 
 Land League, 567. 
 
 Levellers, 55. 
 
 Linen ami woollen trade, 41-43. 
 
 Litton, Mr., 256. 
 
 Londonderry, Marquis of, rent cases, 
 325. 
 
 Lov(^ of country in Trelnud a misfortune, 
 51. 
 
 Lowllier, Mr., 152. 
 
 Lucas, Frederick, 35. 
 
 M'Cafferty, Captain, 291, 517. 
 M'Carthy, Wx. Justin, the Byrne cheque, 
 
 591. 
 Macartney, Mr., 255, 256. 
 Macdonald, Mr., 1, 533 ; o]>iniou of the 
 
 forged letters, 555. 
 Mnguire, Dr., 452. 
 Malion, Jolm, house searcheil, 251. 
 Mahoney, house seareheil, 251. 
 Mansion-Ilouse Fund, 153, 301. 
 Marlborough, Duchess of, relief fund, 
 
 125, 15.3. 
 Marnuoni (informer), 862. 
 Jlartin, John, 33. 
 Martyr's fund, 502. 
 Blathews, Mr. 11. , ami Fenianisin, 37. 
 Mayne, Mr. T., 411. 
 jMayo crimes exannned, 336 ; murders 
 
 in, 351. 
 Milltown, 315. 
 Misgovernment of Ireland Idackest 
 
 page in history, 41 ; a cause of crime, 
 
 48'. 
 Mitchel, John, 3.3. 
 .Aloloney, Mr., 241. 
 Jlodney, Mr., 499 ; opening address, 
 
 500. 
 Mulgrave, Lord, and The TimcR, tlie 
 
 dinner to Ot'ounell, 5. 
 IMulholland, Mr., 255. 
 Mullet, 405. 
 Mullets, 517, 518. 
 Mulqueeny, 520. 
 Murders in 1849 and 1850 compared 
 
 with ten vears of present inquiry, 91 ; 
 
 from 18.32 to 1845, 149; before, 
 
 during, and after Lan<l League, 247 ; 
 
 Phnuiix Park, 282 ; Lydens, .345, 361 ; 
 
 Ilegan, 350 ; Feerick, 352 ; Dillon, 
 
 353 ; Freeley, 354 ; T. Barrett, 355 ; 
 
 Mouutinorres, Lord, 357 ; Couners, 
 
 363 ; P. Dempsey, 366 ; Sergeant 
 
 Linton, 368 ; Peter Uoherty, 368 ; 
 
 Huddyes, 369 ; Sergeant Kavanagh, 
 
 370 ; W. Burke, Corporal Wallace, 
 
 371 ; Mr. Blake, 372 ; Finlav, 373 ; 
 Mr. A. Herbert, 376 ; C. Ilickery, 
 379 ; Daniel Leahy, 380 ; Brown, 
 381 ; Curtin, 382 '; J. Fitzmaurice, 
 385. 
 
 INlurray, Rev. Mr., 351. 
 
 Nai.lv, Scrab, 337, 352, 396. 
 
 Naming, in speeches, 329 ; list of ]ier- 
 sons uamed, 330 ; ]\Ir. Blake not 
 uamed, 373. 
 
 National League, crime during, 294 ; de- 
 tails of foundation, ]irograninie, articles, 
 rules, address, 296 - 304 ; Cowjier 
 Comnussiou blanu-s, 315 ; ]\Ir. Knife 
 on, 316 ; League regarded as tenants' 
 
6l2 
 
 INDEX 
 
 salvation (Biillei), 320 ; I'luukett's 
 eviduiice, iiicru oi)iiiioii, 332 ; outruges 
 not connected with League;, 337, 338, 
 339, 343, 347, 349 ; nnmluis not con- 
 nected with League, 351, 359, 361, 
 363, 368, 370, 372, 375, 379, 380, 
 381 ; League officials remonstrate with 
 people in Curtin case, 385 ; defence of 
 prisoners, 388, 390 ; Mr. T. Harring- 
 ton refuses grant to tenants owing to 
 disturbances, 428 ; League defended 
 Ijy Mr. Parnell, 447 ; American con- 
 nection, narrative of, 437, ct seq. 
 
 Navigation laws, 41. 
 
 Neligan, Mr., 315. 
 
 New York address to Mr. Parnell, 453. 
 
 New York Herald fnnd, 152. 
 
 North and south, ditference of agi'arian- 
 ism in (Charlemont), 59. 
 
 " No Rent Manifesto," 244 ; W. Red- 
 mond on, 422. 
 
 Oakboys, 59. 
 O'Brien, 33. 
 
 O'Brien, Mr. William, 171, 174 ; ar- 
 rested, 240 ; at Chicago, 508. 
 O'Brien, Mr. P. case against, 432. 
 O'C'onuell and Lord Mulgrave, Tlte 
 
 Times on, 5. 
 O'Connell becomes Lord ]\la3or of Dnb- 
 
 lin, 44. 
 O'Coinioi-, Mr. Arthur, head of League, 
 
 238 ; books, 241 ; cheqne, 273 ; case 
 
 against, 418. 
 O'Connor, Mr. John, 382, 383, 384 ; 
 
 case against, 423. 
 O'Connor, Mrs. Mary, house seai'ched, 
 
 251. 
 O'Connor, T. (informer), 333, 347, 427 ; 
 
 ill, makes sworn statement, 429 ; 
 
 letter to brother, 430 ; extract from 
 
 evidence, 431. 
 O'Connor, Mr. T. P., 487. 
 O'Donnell v. Walter, citations from, 234, 
 
 564, 572. 
 O'Donoghne, The, 255. 
 O'Hagan, Mr. Justice, 34. 
 O'Hanlan resolution against Land 
 
 League, his letter, 221. 
 O'Hea, Mr. P., case, 413. 
 O'Kelly, Mr. J. J., case considered, 409 ; 
 
 and Le Caron, 476. 
 O'Leary, Mr. John, 405. 
 O'Malley (police witness), says crime 
 
 always denounced, 235. 
 Orange Society, 62. 
 O'Reilly, Rev. C, 504. 
 O'Reilly, Mr. J. Boyle, 487, 507. 
 Organisation, open, crime greater with- 
 out, 79. 
 O'Riordan, Rev. Mr., strong speech, 377. 
 
 O'Shea, Cajitain, on "No lunt Mani- 
 festo," 245; interviews in Kilniainham, 
 277 ; s])eech on, 278 ; jMr. Parnell 
 opposed to dynamite parly, 571. 
 
 Outrages, committees on, 83 ; Land 
 Question at root of, 87 ; reckless 
 charges abont, 250. 
 
 Pallas, Chief Baron, 391. 
 
 Parnell, Mr. C. S., comes to the front, 
 37 ; tried to create and foster opinion, 
 37 ; accomplished solid gain in ten 
 years, 39 ; his American relief fund, 
 153 ; his family connections, 173 ; 
 the tie between him and otliers, 174 ; 
 his parliamentary action, the Mutiny 
 Bill, 175 ; aimed at creating lri?]i 
 opinion and an Irish party, 177 ; his 
 visit to America, 197 ; Le Caion on, 
 199, 200 ; Bright's later fame cited in 
 Mr. Parnell's favour, 200 ; Rotunda 
 meeting on Mr. Parnell's return, 
 land reform jtrogramme, 201 ; 
 Fenians break uj) his meeting, 220 ; 
 arrested, 240 ; suggest datum line for 
 rents, 268 ; Ladies' Land Lcagne, 273 ; 
 couibination suggested, Arrears Bill 
 advocated, 275 ; jiart of Bill adojited, 
 276 ; Kilniainham interviews, 276 ; 
 released, 281 ; effect on of Pha-nix 
 Park murders, 283 ; visits America in 
 1879, 444 ; reply to a re(piest for 
 another visit in 1881, 445 ; central 
 idea of his i)olicy, 448 ; only one of 
 sixty American speeches challenged, 
 449; the "last link" speech, 449; 
 the reception committee, resolution, 
 452 ; New York address, 453 ; Ameri- 
 can Land Leagne, 463 ; conventions, 
 469, el seq. ; New York World on, 471; 
 Parnell on New York World, 473 ; 
 sni)posed Le Caron interview, 476, et 
 seq. ; speech denouncing P. Ford, 498 ; 
 telegram to PhiJadcjihia ('onvcntion, 
 502 ; inaction over forged Ictteis justi- 
 fied, 525, 526 ; could have proved more 
 forgeries against Pigott, 539 ; letter to 
 Leag\ie for grant, the Bryne cheipie 
 exjilained, 587. 
 
 Penal Code of Ireland, 41 ; Proude on, 
 45 ; distinct character, Biirlce on, 46. 
 
 Phiiliiis, Mr., 238, 250. 
 
 PhoMiix Park mnrders, 282 ; Parnell 
 manifesto on, 283 ; Davitt's letter on, 
 285. 
 
 Physical force, Parnell against, 477 ; 
 Davitt against, 496, 510. 
 
 Pigott, Cliief Baron, 389. 
 
 Pigott, R., 16 ; not snbiiomaed when in- 
 ([Uiry began, 535 ; lirst statement to 
 Mr. Soanies, 536 ; interviews witli 
 
INDEX 
 
 6t3 
 
 Messrs. rnrnell, Lewis, aiul Laboiicliere, 
 fio.aiTies and Honston ]irivy to, 537 ; 
 letters of November, 537, 538 ; K-iiown 
 to he discreiliteil, but Timr.t makes no 
 inquiry, 539 ; tlie storj-abont tlie first 
 bateliol' letters, 541-5'! 3; the second and 
 tliird batelies, 544 ; aecoiint of Inniself, 
 correspondence with IMr. Forster, 515 ; 
 witli Archbishop Walsli, 546, 548 ; 
 witl) Mr. Ksan, 547 ; tlie reply to 
 Tndli, 550 ; interview at Mr. Tjiibon- 
 cliere's, the. confession, 551 ; Sliannou 
 kiirw he had gone to Spain, 553. 
 
 riea. (it iiii/rrfitiM acquit, 13. 
 
 riunkett, Ca].tain, 331. 
 
 roliceman, a Ijaiid Leaguer, 3()0. 
 
 T^1litical System, vice of, tliat no free- 
 will onciiui,'s to Ireland, Kil. 
 
 Fob'Uo t'ro]!, stalislics of, Irom 187(5 to 
 1S7!», ll!>; seeds supi>lied by League, 
 228. 
 
 Power, I\Ir. O'Connor, 208, 256. 
 
 Presbyterians from north of Ireland 
 o]i]iose British forces in America, GO, (H. 
 
 rro[)erty, rights and duties, H!2. 
 
 Public ojiinion, focnssed, prevents crime, 
 80. 
 
 Quotations — 
 
 American Land League, objects and 
 rules, 463 ; address, 501. 
 
 Argyle, Uuke of, on Disturbance Bill, 
 157, 158. 
 
 Attorney-General, on conspiracy, 227 ; 
 "no single step" taken to denounce 
 ciinu', 235 ; O'Donnell v. Walter, 
 234, 564, 572; charges "organised 
 consjiiiacy," 570 ; Mr. Parnell knew 
 of oidragcs, 574. 
 
 Bagenal, 7. 
 
 Bagenal, Mr., on Land Jjcague in 
 America, 198. 
 
 Bennett, Mr., on agrarian conspiracy, 
 78. 
 
 Bentham on associations hostile to 
 executive, 313. 
 
 Bessborough Commission on Encnin- 
 liered Estates Act, 257 ; Deasy's 
 Act, 258 ; Land Act of 1870, 259. 
 
 Blackburne, Mr., on Wliiteboyism, 71. 
 
 Bourke, Mr., 126, 127. 
 
 Brown, Rev. D., on constitutional 
 remedy for wrongs, 589, 590. 
 
 Buller, Sir Uedvcrs, on discretionary 
 jiower, 318 ; on the tenant's view of 
 National TiCague as " their salva- 
 tion," 320. 
 
 Burke, Mr., 133. 
 
 Chandierlain, Mr., on the Castle, 597. 
 
 Charlemont, Lord, 96. 
 
 Chcsliulield, 51. 
 
 Quotations — 
 Clare, Lor<l, 96. 
 Clergyman, a, examined by Mr. Bright 
 
 on Teiiant.s League, 89. 
 Cobden, 8. 
 Collins, General, on Irish Question, 
 
 491. 
 Cowper Commission — Mr. Knipe on 
 
 coercive legislation, 316. 
 Daley, Mr., 391. 
 
 Devon ('(Miiniission Report, 99-103. 
 Drunimond, Thomas, and Poulet 
 Scrope on rights and duties of jmo- 
 lierty, 162. 
 Dullerin, Lord, 42, 43. 
 Fletcher, Baron, 62-64. 
 Forster, Jlr. W. E., on his Coin- 
 pensation for Disturl)ance Bill, 155, 
 156. 
 Fox, Mr., on destitution in Ireland, 
 
 144. 
 Freeman's Journnl, 279. 
 Fronde, 42-45, 47. 
 Gordon, General, on need for drastic 
 
 reforms, 147. 
 Grimshaw, Dr., on Irish crops, 150, 
 
 151. 
 Hancock, Dr. Neilson, 111, 121. 
 Hancock, IMr., 103, 110, 111. 
 Hansard, 278. 
 IJartington, Lord, 32 ; on Ribbon 
 
 Society, 92. 
 Kerry, Knight of, 58. 
 Kerry Scniinel, 387. 
 Lecky, Mr., 31, 42, 52. 58-60. 
 Leonard, Mr., 129. 
 
 Lewis, Sir G. Coriiewall, on causes of 
 Irish disturbance, 66 ; law and 
 slaveiy, 68 ; high rcuts, 69 ; the 
 robust resist, 72 : classes of crime, 
 73, 76 ; pievcntive crime, 75 ; 
 Wliiteboyism a trades union, 76. 
 Local Government Rc]iort, Aju'll 1880, 
 
 117 ; for 1881, 13.3. 
 Mackintosh, Sir .Tames, on evil con- 
 nected witli good movernents, 197. 
 IMooney, Mr. .Tames, on Mr. Parnell, 
 
 500. 
 Nein York WorhJ, Davitt's letter to, 
 
 441. 
 O'Brien, R. Bairy, on resisting tithe 
 
 .sales, 81. " 
 
 Pallas, Chief Baron, on Lord Clanri- 
 
 carde, 391. 
 Palmerston, Lord, 47. 
 Paru(>ll, New York address to, 453 ; 
 
 Madison Square speech, 454. 
 Power, Mr., 125-127. 
 lleilly, Mr. John Boyle, on Glad- 
 stone's speech and Home Rule Bill, 
 508. 
 
6i4 
 
 INDEX 
 
 Quotations — 
 
 llicliiuoiiil C'oiiiiiiissiou Ruijort, 1881, 
 why caily luiiort, 136 ; bad liai- 
 vest ill 1880, l;i7 ; on Enuuuiljurcd 
 Estates Act, 13S ; want of tenants' 
 security, 1^8, Ki'J ; tear of increased 
 rents, 139 ; state of Kerry, 140 ; 
 borrowing of tenants, 141 ; state of 
 small farmers, 142 ; Bright clauses, 
 142 ; raising rents in Donegal, 143, 
 144. 
 
 Rohinson, Mr., 1-28-1 32. 
 
 Itoughan, Dr., 120, 121, 124. 
 
 Russell, Lord Jdliii, on the land- 
 craving, 148 ; lioiuicides, 149. 
 
 Standard (Davitt's letter), 285. 
 
 Timas, 391, 580, 582. 
 
 Walsh, Dr., on arrears, 266. 
 
 Witnesses on distress of 1879, 133. 
 
 Woulfe, Chief Baron, 38. 
 Quotations from The Times, 5 ; Bagcnal, 
 
 7 ; Cohden, 8 ; Hartiugton, Lord, 32 ; 
 
 Woulfe, Chief Baron, 38 ; Dullerin, 
 
 Lord, 42, 43 ; Eroude, 42-45, 47 ; 
 
 Lecky, Mr., 31, 42, 52, 58-60; 
 
 Palmerston, Lord, 47 ; Kerry, Knight 
 
 of, 58 ; Chesterfield, 54 ; Fletclier, 
 
 Baron, 62-64. 
 
 Rafferty, outrage two months before 
 speech, 343. 
 
 Rebellion of slaves worse than of IVee 
 men, 59. 
 
 Redmond, Mr. John, case against, 420 ; 
 Times treatment of, 421 ; at Chicago, 
 508, 512. 
 
 Redmond, Mr. W., case against, 397, 
 422. 
 
 Reid, Mr., digest of evidence, 329. 
 
 Rent, economic, 116; "No Rent Mani- 
 festo," 244. 
 
 Rents, high, 69 ; enforcement of causes 
 crime, 70 ; Cowper Cominission on, 
 315 ; reduced in Ijand Court, 322- 
 326 ; cause of, 327 ; Millstreet, 342. 
 
 Reynolds, Miss, 273. 
 
 Ribbonisin, 88, 90, 92. 
 
 Richmond Commsision and Irish mem- 
 bers of, 135. 
 
 Roljb, Mr. W., rent cases, 326. 
 
 Roche, John, 373. 
 
 Rossa, O'Donovan, 501. 
 
 Royse, P. C, 341. 
 
 Russell, Sir t!]iarles, conversation with 
 Irish i>easant, 77-78 ; speaks for the 
 land of his birth, 602. 
 
 Ryan, Mr., evidence of, 273. 
 
 Sala, Mr. G. A., 551. 
 Savings bank fallacy, 114. 
 Searches, 250-253. 
 
 Secret societies, eli'ect of misgovern- 
 nient cause of crime, 61 ; iu Kurr^, 
 
 319. 
 Sexton, Thomas, 167 ; succeeds Dillon 
 at League, 238 ; case against, 422 ; at 
 
 Boston, 504. 
 Shannou, Mr., sees Pigott, 552 ; knew 
 
 Pigott was leaving, 553. 
 Shaw, Mr., 152, 176, 257. 
 Sheehy, Mr. D., case, 418. 
 Sheehy, Rev. E., 487. 
 Sheridan arrested, 239, 398, 501, 575. 
 Sheridan, Martin, house searched, 251. 
 Sherlock, Sergeant, 255. 
 Slack, Captain, truiiii)ery cases, 336, 337 ; 
 
 against Mr. T. Mayne, 411. 
 Smith Barry, Mr. A. 11., rent cases, 324. 
 Smith case, 338. 
 Smyth, Mr., 255. 
 Soanies, Mr., 1, 238, 436 ; Pigott's first 
 
 statement to, 536. 
 Speeches, the two most relied on by The 
 Times, 397. 
 
 Argyle, Duke of. Disturbance Bill, 
 1 57. 
 
 Collins, General, 490. 
 
 Davitt, M., at Navan, 492 ; against 
 Finnerty, 509. 
 
 Forster, Mr. W. E., on Disturbance 
 Bill, 155. 
 
 Paniell, Mr., Land Conference, 29th 
 April 1880, 210 ; Rotunda, lOtli 
 May 18S0, 219 ; last link, 450 ; 
 ]\ladison Square, 454. 
 
 Redmond, John, 512. 
 Statistics — Coercive Acts, 65 ; crimes in 
 
 1833, 79; in 1849, 90; Poor Law 
 
 averages iu 18S0, 246-248 ; emigration 
 
 1879-80, 120; Donegal rents, 143; 
 
 jiotato crop 1876-79, 149; general 
 
 crops, 150, 151 ; evictions 1877-80, 
 
 156 ; ejectment notices, 161 ; Fenians, 
 
 200; crimes 1880-82, 246 - 24S ; 
 
 Arrears Act and crime, 293, 294 ; 
 
 voters in Ireland and England coni- 
 
 liared, 306 ; Irish polls, 309-311 ; rent 
 
 reductions, 323-326. 
 Steelboys, predecessors of Orangemen, 
 
 60. 
 Steele, Mr., house searched, 251. 
 Sullivan, 477, 482, 508. 
 Sullivan, Mr. T. I)., case against, 433. 
 Susjiects, maintenance of, 273. 
 Swinford cases, 337. 
 
 Tanner, Dr., case against, 423. 
 Taylor, Mr., 256. 
 
 Tenant in Ireland, a lal)Ourer, 115. 
 Tenant right moderates agrarianism, 59 ; 
 
 lessened crime, 112. 
 " Tenants Defence Association," 373. 
 
INDEX 
 
 6iS 
 
 Tcimnts (Ipfciiiled by League, 228. 
 Teiiniit.s driven to liustiiigs, fiS. 
 Tenants League, 85 ; diminished crime, 
 
 89. 
 Tenants, secnritie.s for, suggested in LS.52, 
 
 Tlirealening l(>ti('is dciinnnccd by Davitt, 
 '2:]2 ; number of, 248. 
 
 Tluesliers, (JL 
 
 Timm, Thr, .-i company, attack on Lord 
 IMnlgrave, a keynote to Irish mis- 
 government, ri ; attacks Iiisli priest- 
 liood, veninrks on the famine and 
 Young Irelancl, (! ; worst factor in 
 Iiish misgovcvnnuMit, 6 ; J5ageiial on, 
 7 ; misused its inlluence, 7 ; mental 
 food of governing classes, 8 ; lieljis 
 forward rnscs it opjioses, 8 ; Soanies's 
 stafcnicut about Jjcague accounts, 
 2.38; (loran chp([ne, A'^G ; witnesses to 
 Irisli distress cited, 13.3 ; its theory of 
 combination amongst Iri.sh leaders,! 74 ; 
 its theory of consjiiracy nnsnbstaiiti- 
 ated, 22.'')-227 ; put in 410 speeches, 
 306 ; treatment of Mr. John Iledmond, 
 421 ; l\Ir. Parnell's wisdom in not 
 taking action against tlie O'Donnell r. 
 Walter case, 526-528 ; buys the forged 
 letters — the prices, 532 ; second and 
 tliiid batch, 533 ; compact, 536 ; knew 
 Pigdtt accMised of forging letters in 
 Novcndier, 538 ; ludds i)ack letters 
 nntil February, 539 ; a fairer course 
 suggested, 540 ; how " the whole fal)ric 
 of calumny" arose, 556 ; disappearance 
 of Pigott suggested reconsideration, 
 but the case goes on, 56L 
 
 Tithes, resisting sales for, 81 ; orders to 
 landlords — servants leave, 82 ; anti- 
 titlie resistance natural, 83. 
 
 Tories seek helj) of Irish party in 1885, 
 9. 
 
 Trench, ]\Ir. Stuart, 461. 
 
 'i'ully, 396. 
 
 Tynan (No. 1), 291, 517. 
 
 Ulster, a majority of Nationalist ]\LP.'s 
 I'or, 3. 
 
 V. C. Cincui.Aiis, April 1880, 484 ; 
 Novendier LS8], 487; .lanuary 1882, 
 488 ; April 188-3, 499 ; August 1884, 
 503 ; Novendier 1885, 5U4 ; August 
 1886, 506. 
 
 Village ruflians, l\lr. Forstcr on, 242. 
 
 Wai.sii, Dr., aichliisliop, correspondence 
 with Pigott, 546, 548. 
 
 Walsh, John, hotisc atPochdale searched, 
 252; Delaney meets, 517. 
 
 Walsh, Ilev. L., 474, 481. 
 
 Whiteboyism, origin of, 54 ; Chester- 
 field and Lecky on, 54, 55 ; its crimes 
 lilce those conqdained of now, 56; dis- 
 tress at bottom of, 58, 69 ; due to liigli 
 rents and physical nnsery, 70-71; 
 trades union (Lewis), 75, 76. 
 
 Woollen and linen trade, 41-43. 
 
 YouNr, Ireland, physical force part un- 
 important, precursor of Parnell move- 
 ment, its heroes, 33, 34 ; its literature, 
 34. 
 
 THE END 
 
 Lf^l^ 
 
 .^ 
 ? 
 
 3 
 
 Printed bv R. & R. Clark, Edinburgh 
 
This book is a preservation photocopy 
 
 produced on Weyerhaeuser add free 
 
 Cougar Opaque 50# book weight paper, 
 
 which meets the requirements of 
 
 ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (pennanence of paper) 
 
 Preservation photocopying and binding 
 
 by 
 
 Acme Bookbinding 
 
 Qiarlestown, Massachusetts 
 
 m 
 
 1994 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 A.?H 
 
 -5&' 
 
 tririoir 
 
 UNIVERSITY PRODUCTS, INC. #859-5503 
 
BOSTON COLLEGE 
 
 3 9031 026 17017 5