)^- 
 
 Dr. O'DWYER 
 
 KOlWflH CflTHOItIC BISHOP OF liimEHlCK, 
 
 AND THE 
 
 IRISH NATIOMLISTS. 
 
 [A Statement of facts in connection 
 
 -with Mr. John Dillon's attack on the 
 
 Hev. Dr. O'D^wyer.] 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 P. S. KING AND SON, 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY BOOKSELLERS, 
 
 5, KING STREET, WESTMINSTER. 
 
 NOVEMBER, 1890. 
 
 E 1 [481 
 
POPE AND PRELATE 
 
 RESCRIPT OR REVOLUTION. 
 
 The following" is. a summary of events connected 
 with a serious scandal which occurred in Ireland 
 in the latter end of August, 1890, when an Irish 
 Catholic Bishop was publicly insulted in his own 
 Cathedral City, by men who are leading members 
 of the Parnellite party, and who profess to call 
 themselves Roman Catholics, A very few words 
 will be necessary to show how the scandal arose. 
 
 It will be recollected that during April, 1888, 
 His Holiness the Pope saw fit to issue a Decree 
 of Holy Office which he himself ratified, and by 
 which Boycotting and the Plan of Campaign were 
 formally and authoritatively condemned. 
 
 The following is a translation of the Brief or 
 Rescript which contains the Decree in question. 
 
 THE PAPAL DECREE. 
 
 " On several occasions the Apostolic See has given 
 to the people of Ireland (whom it has always regarded 
 with special benevolence) suitable admonitions and 
 advice, when circumstances required, as to how they 
 might defend their rights without injury to justice or 
 to the public peace. 
 
 14S3 
 
'* Our Holy Father. Leo XIII., fearing lest in that 
 species of warfare that has been introduced amongst 
 the Irish people into the contests between landlords 
 and tenants, and which is commonly called the Plan of 
 Campaign, and in that kind of social interdict called 
 boycotting, arising from the same contests, true sense 
 of justice and charity might be perverted, ordered the 
 Supreme Congregation of the Inquisition to subject 
 the matter to serious and careful examination. 
 
 " Hence the following question was proposed to 
 their Eminences the Cardinals of that Congregation : — 
 Is it permissible, in the disputes between landowners 
 and tenants in Ireland to use the means known as the 
 Plan of Campaign and boycotting ? After long and 
 mature deliberation their Eminences unanimously 
 answered in the negative, and the decision was 
 confirmed by the Holy Father on Wednesday, the 
 1 8th of the present month. 
 
 " The justice of this decision will be readily seen 
 by anyone who applies his mind to consider that a 
 rent agreed on by mutual consent cannot, without 
 violation of a contract, be diminished at the mere will 
 of tenant, especially when there are tribunals appointed 
 for settling such controversies and reducing unjust 
 rents within the bounds of equity, after taking into 
 account the causes which diminish the value of the 
 land. 
 
 " Neither can it be considered permissible that rents 
 be extorted from tenants and deposited in the hands 
 of unknown persons to the detriment of the land- 
 owners. Finally, it is contrary to justice and charity 
 to persecute by a social interdict those who are satisfied 
 to pay the rents they agreed to, or those who, in the 
 exercise of their right, take vacant farms. 
 
 " It will, therefore, be your Lordship's duty, pru- 
 dently, but effectively, to advise and exhort the clevgy 
 and the laity not to transgress the bounds of Christian 
 4841 
 
charity and justice whilst they are striving for a remedy 
 i"or their distressed condition. 
 
 (Signed) " R. Cardinal Monaco. 
 " Rome, April 2oth, 1888." 
 
 It is needless to follow in detail the events which 
 took place after this irrevocable, but most natural, act 
 on the part of the Supreme Pontiff. The Parnellites 
 resisted His Holiness, and publicly and strenuously 
 enforced, as far as they were able, their immoral and 
 illegal proceedings with relentless vigour. 
 
 One Irish Bishop took a simple course in this 
 emergency. Dr. O'Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick, openly 
 taught the Papal Rescript, and sought to carry it into 
 effect. He strove bravely and nobly in the face of 
 -difficulties, which none can appreciate but himself, and 
 he boldly told his people that sin is to be avoided in 
 whatever shape it may present itself to the passions of 
 unfortunate and deluded humanity. 
 
 Now, in the Limerick Diocese there had been 
 established the Plan of Campaign upon an estate 
 •called Glensharrold, before the issue of the Papal 
 Decree. The Bishop took every means to put an end 
 to it, and with this object he wrote a final letter to the 
 Parish Priest of the tenants on the estate. This letter 
 proved to be the commencement of a phase of outrage 
 against P^piscopal authority, which is described in the 
 following pages. The letter, which is here reproduced, 
 was addressed to the Ven. Archdeacon Halpin, V.G., 
 and incidentally gives the whole case in dispute 
 between landlord and tenant. 
 
 It will be only (necessary to say that the Glens- 
 harrold Estate is situated! [within four miles of the 
 railway station of Ardagh, and about thirty Irish 
 miles from Limerick. The Estate is owned by 
 Mr. John C. Delmege, who purchased it in 1853. 
 Mr. Delmege mortgaged the property to the Scottish 
 
 [485 
 
Union and National Assurance Company, and, falling- 
 into arrears with the Interest, the Estate was placed 
 by the mortgagees under the Court of Chancery. 
 There are about thirty tenants and twenty lotholders 
 or squatters on the Estate. 
 
 The Palace, Corbally, 
 
 Limerick, igth May, 1S90. 
 
 Mv Dear Archdeacon,— I have learned tliat the judges 
 q{ the Landed Estates Court have determined to make no 
 further advance on the concessions which they offered through 
 me last January to the Glensharrold tenantry, and unless 
 these terms are accepted at once that they will proceed to 
 eviction. Now this is a great calamity. All through these 
 negotiations I hoped that our poor people would be spared 
 the miseries of it, and now that it is at their doors I make this 
 last appeal to them as their friend and their bishop. I beg of 
 them in*theirown interest to accept the court's offer and keep 
 the roof over their heads. Last January I told them that I 
 thought it not only a fair but a liberal offer, and that in my 
 opinion they would be guilty of reckless folly in rejecting it. 
 I repeat that opinion, and I am confident that when the 
 public come to know the facts of the case, and the obstinacy 
 of those who decline to accept, they will condemn it, and stili 
 more severely the mischievous cruelty of those parties who 
 are egging them on todestruction. It would be well to point out 
 again to these poor people thatthe rent which they are nov/ asked 
 to pay has not been fi.xed by the landlord or by anyone who 
 has a sixpence interest in it. It has been determined by the 
 Judges of the Landed Estates Court, on the report of their 
 own ^valuer, the Chief Receiver in Chancery, who came in 
 person on the estate for the purpose. I know that he was 
 instructed to do justice to the tenants. I know that he went 
 upon the land animated with the largest sympathy with them, 
 and a determination to treat them liberally. Now, whatever 
 he said about the tenants combining against rapacious and 
 oppressive landlords there can be no justification of their 
 resisting the decision of the highest tribunal in the land, that 
 has been reached through the advice of as competent a land 
 <7aluer and as honourable a man as there is in all Ireland. 
 Then ask the tenants to consider what is offered to them. 
 They should remember that they are judicial leaseholders, 
 i86] 
 
and that the court for the first time, as far as I know, in 
 Ireland proposes to put aside these judicial leases and refix 
 the fair rent. That is a very strong thing to do, and they dc 
 it thoroughly. Off the rents reserved in the judicial leases they 
 make an abatement of 30 per cent, all round, and that 
 without compensation of any kind to the landlord. Mr. 
 Parneil, the other day in the House of Commons, proposed 
 that the Government should lend money to the landlords as 
 an inducement to them to reduce the judicial rents of alJ 
 tenants who are valued at under ;;^5o a year exactly by this 
 sum. Is it not a noteworthy comment on his proposition that 
 on the first property on which it is tried, tenants of the very 
 class he contemplates are instructed to refuse that settlement, 
 eve'j, though landlords get no compensation ? But, apart 
 from general considerations such as these, can the tenants 
 expect public sympathy and public approval in rejecting such 
 an offer as the following: — (i) They owe five years' arrears, 
 for which they will get a clear receipt on the payment of one 
 year's rent, less 30 per cent. (2) They are allowed to surrender 
 judicial leases, which reduced their rents on an average by 25 
 per cent, and they will get a further reduction of 30 per cent.^ 
 that is bringing their future rent about 50 per cent, under 
 their old rent. The figures stand thus : — 
 
 Arrears due to March, 1890,^^2,611 14s. gd. 
 Payment to be accepted, ^^384 lis. 
 Arrears to be forgiven, ;!^2,227 3s. gd. 
 Rents — Old rent, ^^"73 8 15s. 4d. ; judicial, ^^542 6s. ; present 
 offer of judges, £s^4 ^ ^s. ; gross annual reduction, ;!^354 4s. 4d. 
 
 Now, it will be impossible on these figures to persuade the 
 public that these poor people are still the victims of rapacious 
 landlordism, or that they have any just cause for taking the 
 extreme and, for them, terrible step of abandoning their homes. 
 If they have sense they will do nothing of the kind. Even 
 supposing that their own demand of 40 per cent, instead of 
 30 per cent, were reasonable they would not be justified, for so 
 small a sum, in bringing upon themselves the sorrow and 
 heartbreak of eviction and disturbing the whole side of a 
 country, g It only means a difference of £^4 ^ year between 
 forty-seven tenants, and surely sensible men are not going to 
 break up their little homes and scatter their stock for a sum 
 like that. To the largest farmer on the estate it means only 
 £y los. a year. His old rent was £100, his judicial rent is £7$. 
 The court's offer now to him is £$2 los. He is willing to pay 
 
 [487 
 
8 
 
 £4S' I ''^•"'^ ^'"'y sensible man if it is a reasonable proceeding 
 of that tenant to sacrifice everything, even though he might 
 reasonably expect to get the further reduction ? Would it not 
 be better for him to put his £sy los. a year in his pocket and 
 hold his land, <)^ For many of the tenants the difference does 
 not amount to ;^i a year, and surely, right or wrong, they are 
 not justified in throwing up their poor homes for that I beg 
 of them then, at the last moment, before taking a step which 
 they may regret all the days of their lives, to listen to my 
 advice. If they spend a year in idleness on the side of the 
 road, neither they nor their children will ever raise their heads 
 again. The farmer whose home is once broken up, whose 
 stock is scattered and his capital spent, may recover his lands 
 after some years, but he will be a pauper while he lives. In 
 '-.his case, if the tenants go out, I can see no prospect of their 
 return for many a day. They are dealing, not with a landlord, 
 but with the judges of the Landed Estates Court, and it is not 
 easy to see how the court can be brought in a case like this 
 to reverse its own action. You know, my dear Archdeacon, 
 and all the priests of this diocese know, that my policy has 
 been uniformly to help the people to get as large reductions 
 of rent as possible, for I have always held that rents were too 
 high,but at the same time I have advised everyone concerned, 
 when " all went to all," to keep the roof over their people's 
 heads. I say the same now to the people of Glcnsharrold. 
 They have got immense concessions. They have a fair way 
 of living. Let them not now by one supreme actof folly throw 
 away all that they have gained. Thus urging them to cling 
 to their homes, I have but one end in view, and that ^is their 
 own good. It would be easy for me to win popularity by 
 taking another course, but even if higher motives did not 
 restrain me I should be ashamed to ask poor people to endure 
 the heartbreaking sorrows of eviction which I had no notion 
 of ever undergoing myself.— I am, my dear Archdeacon, very 
 faithfully yours in Christ, 
 
 ►!< EDWARD THOMAS, 
 
 Bishop of Limerick. 
 
 This letter produced a good deal of angry feeling 
 on the part of those who were determined to advocate 
 [488 
 
the condemned practices as their sole programme for 
 the " reeeneration of Ireland." But another incident 
 occurred about this time which aroused the animosity 
 of the Separatist party. Last winter a British Mission 
 was sent with due ceremony to the Holy See to 
 nepfotiate certain matters which concerned Malta. 
 Strange as it may appear at first sight, this event 
 aroused the fierce resentment of the Parnellite party, 
 and a great deal of anger was displayed both against 
 the Pope and against the British Government. 
 Mr. T. M. Healy, M.P., taunted the House of 
 Commons that the old " No Popery " cry was extinct. 
 But it was reserved for Mr. John Dillon, M.P., to 
 overstep all decency by making a speech in the House 
 of Commons on the nth Jul)^ which denounced both 
 the Pope and the Bishop of Limerick in the following 
 astounding language, reported by the Frcciuans 
 Jojirnal. 
 
 Mr. Dillon said : — 
 
 The Irish members had been assailed in this country as the 
 advocates of Home Rule in Ireland, and it had been used as an 
 argument against them that an Irish Parliament would inevitably 
 be slaves to the Pope and subservient to Rome, but what did the 
 Chief Secretary do } Did he not in conjunction with his uncle, 
 I^Lord Salisbury] send to the Pope and try to bribe him to help to 
 crush the Irish people (loud cheers). He did not think any more 
 humiliating' or disgusting spectacle had ever been exhibited than 
 the right hon. gentleman standing before a Manchester audience 
 and rebuking the Catholics of Ireland for not showing sufficient 
 deference to the head of their Church (loud laughter). Speaking 
 then as an Irish Catholic and on behalf of the Catholics of Ireland, 
 he told the right hon. gentleman that he and his co-religionists were 
 as independent of Rome and of the agents of his Holiness in all 
 political matters as any Nonconformist sitting on those benches 
 (cheers). They were far more independent in political matters 
 of Rome than the right hon. gentleman and his uncle were, who 
 debased the honour of England by crawling to the Court of 
 Rome and offering bribes to His Holiness to aid them in crushing- 
 the people of Ireland (loud cheers). There was no fouler stain 
 ■cast on the people of England, and no more intolerable grievance 
 •inflicted on the people of Ireland, than when the right hon. 
 
 [489 
 
10 
 
 g-entleman succeeded in g"etting His Holiness to send anag^ent tO' 
 trade on the reverence of the Irish people. They would never 
 allow his promises for one single hour to interfere between them 
 and the goal on which they had set their hopes (loud cheers), 
 nor would they allow him to use them as a means to sow discord 
 between the Irish members and the Irish people. They scorned 
 his offers. They wanted no Catholic University from him. 
 What they wanted was liberty to regulate their own aflfairs in 
 Ireland. For two generations they had been denied justice in 
 that matter, and now they could afford to wait a little longer. 
 They would have the university in Ireland they desired when 
 they had a home Parliament. The right hon. gentleman had 
 succeeded by his promises and schemes in capturing two Irish 
 bishops, one of whom, Dr. O'Dwyer, had written a most violent 
 and dastardly letter.* 
 
 The Chief Secretary — I rise to order. I don't think an 
 attack on an Irish bishop can be properly made on this vote (oh). 
 
 The Chairman — I understood the hon. gentleman was referring" 
 to the right hon. g-entleman's action. If he went on to attack, 
 the bishop no doubt he would not be in order (Ministerial 
 cheers). 
 
 Mr. Dillon — I think the action of the right hon. grentleman in 
 springing from his seat to defend the bishop 
 
 The Chief Secretary — I again rise to order. I sprang from 
 my seat because I thoug-ht the hon. g-entleman went beyond thcr 
 vote. I shall not attempt to defend the bishop (oh, oh). 
 
 Mr. Dillon said he would say no more on that point (hear, 
 hear). All he would say was that, as an Irish Catholic, that 
 g"entleman had done his worst ag'ainst the Irish Church, and he 
 was exceedinp^ly glad he stood alone among the Episcopacy of 
 Ireland, with his scandalous conduct (cheers). 
 
 This speech, as was only natural, roused the honest 
 indignation of the Bishop of Limerick, and he 
 immediately wrote to the Freeman s Journal as 
 follows : — 
 
 To THE Editor of the "Freeman's Journal."' 
 
 Sir," — I once heard a beggar woman pouring forth the foulest 
 abuse in the public street on an apparently and respectable and 
 inoffensive looking man. My curiosity being- stimulated, I inquired 
 
 * This portion of Mr. Dillon's speech is reported as follows in the Daily 
 A'i'wrofthc 1 2th July : — " Dr. O'Dwyer, the Catholic Bishop of Limerick, hatl 
 written a letter wliich was one of the most infamous, cowardly and dastardly ever 
 penned. The Bishop was tlie servant of the Government." 
 
 490] 
 
11 
 
 the cause, and learned that he had informed some casual passer 
 by, who was touched by the number and poverty of the children 
 into giving' alms, that these children in reality were not her own, 
 but had been borrowed from a sympathetic neighbour for elee- 
 mosynary purposes — Hinc illcc lachrymcE. It is only in the same 
 way that I can account for 
 
 MR. Dillon's outburst of outrageous language 
 
 in denouncing me for the simple and matter-of-fact letter which I 
 gave to the public on the Glensharrold case. He had been 
 engaged labouring of late collecting money, ostensibly for the 
 relief of evicted tenants. He and his party are still occupied in 
 the same profitable employment, and, just as they hoped to 
 strike another golden vein by the exhibition of death sentences 
 ruthlessly carried out upon the hapless victims of heartless 
 landlordism, it must have been very provoking to have the real 
 facts of the case exposed and the pockets of the sympathisers 
 closed. Hence I can very well understand Mr. Dillon's anger, 
 but all the same I cannot excuse his language. He applies 
 term of insult to me that he would not dare to use if I were a 
 layman sitting opposite to him in the House of Commons, 
 " Infamous, cowardly, dastardly," are the epithets by which he 
 describes my letter, and 
 
 HE CALLS MY CONHUCT "SCANDALOUS." 
 
 Now, I never in my life said one word that was personally 
 offensive to Mr. Dillon. For good or evil, I never even 
 mentioned his name in public. Why, then, should he wantonly 
 use in my regard language of so gross and insulting vituperation i*" 
 In reply I tell him simply that my letter was not infamous, but 
 the truth, and that I am no coward nor dastard, but that is the 
 conduct of a coward and a dastard to use such language to any 
 man, but most of all to a bishop, behind his back. I am not equal 
 to a contest in Billingsgate with Mr. Dillon, nor do I mean to try 
 it. But I will tell him this, that if at any time I should find myself 
 put into prison for a cause that I professed to believe just, I would 
 rot there before I allowed my friends to send up a miserable 
 whine for my release from every end of the country on the plea 
 of health, and that if I sneaked out thus and then went off to the 
 Antipodes on a twelve months' tour until the storm blew over and 
 my vows to defy the Act of Parliament under which I had been 
 imprisoned were forgotten, he might call me a dastard without 
 fear of contradiction. 
 
 But, sir, I am almost ashamed of myself to waste so many 
 words on this gentleman's personal offensiveness to myself, when 
 I read the language which he dares to use towards the august and 
 sacred person of the Vicar of Christ. 
 
 [491 
 
12 
 
 IT IS NO DISGRACE, BUT AN HONOUR, 
 
 for a poor, simple bishop to receive a few spatters of the dirt that 
 is flung- at the representative of his Divine Master. If only I could 
 get it all, and be covered with opprobrium while I lived, so as to 
 ■spare our old Catholic nation the shame before the world that 
 one of the foulest charg-es ever levelled ag-ainst the successors ot 
 St. Peter was hurled at Leo XIII., amidst the cheers of Eng-lish 
 Protestants and Eng-lish unbelievers by one who professes to be 
 a member of the Church. Why, the Giordano Bruno people do 
 not impeach the Pope's personal honour. M. Constans and his 
 <:olleagues in France believe in no God, and attack relig^ion, but 
 ihey never stoop to charg-e the Head of the Church with 
 Charlatanism. But here is a Catholic boasting- of his Catho- 
 licity, the friend of bishops and archbishops, using- the 
 privileg-es of the faith in order to g'et near the Father of the 
 Faithful and stab him in the back. Let the Catholic people of 
 Ireland listen to this : 
 
 They were far more independent in political matters of Rome than 
 the right hon. gentleman and his uncle were, who debased the honour 
 of England by crawling to the Court of Rome and offering bribes to 
 his Holiness to aid them in crushing the people of Ireland. (Loud 
 •cheers.) There was no fouler stain cast on the people of England, no 
 more intolerable grievance inflicted on the people of Ireland, than when 
 ihe right hon. gentleman succeeded in getting his Holiness to send an 
 agent to trade on the reverence of the Irish people. 
 
 Was ever so desperate, so recklessly and wildly desperate a 
 -charg-e made by any Catholic in the greatest drunkenness of 
 •excess comparable to this — that Leo XIII. trafficked in the 
 reverence of a Catholic people for his own purposes, pretended 
 to teach them the duties of the Christian life, whereas for some 
 bribe or other that he g;ot from the English Government he was 
 leading them deliberately astray ? Why, apart altog-ethcr from 
 his office, and that divine g-uidance under which he acts, if we 
 ■only think of the personality of Leo XIII. we shall see the horrible 
 g-rotesqueness of this vile accusation. In Christendom there is no 
 nobler fig-ure this moment. Set in the background of sorrow that 
 God has allowed to gather so heavily around him, he stands a 
 figure of light and grandeur, the glory and the pride of the 
 Catholic Church. He is seated on the throne whose greatness 
 dwarfs all human dimensions, and yet in the force, the simplicity, 
 the elevation, of his personal character he has drawn the hearts 
 of the people in adniiration to himself; and is it not pitiful to see 
 this poor young member of Parliament, in presence of the world, 
 encouraged by the cheers of men who detest the Pope because 
 they detest the Catholic Church, flinging insult and vituperation 
 492] 
 
13 
 
 on him ? This g-cntleman has often boasted of his intimacy with 
 bishops and archbishops, and the aid which he g'ot from them at 
 home and abroad. It will be interesting- to observe how many 
 of them now will be anxious to identify themselves with him 
 publicly until this insulting- slander is withdrawn. 
 
 Besides the mere scurrility of his speech there is one definite 
 charg-e of Mr. Dillon's with which I should wish to deal. He 
 states that "Mr. Balfour had secured me." That he had 
 '• captured me." What precisely does he mean by these state- 
 ments? If he means that any action which I have taken in public 
 affairs has been the result of engag-ement, compact, neg-otiation 
 of any kind, publicly or privately, between me and the Government 
 or Mr. Balfour, he states what is absolutely and entirely false. 
 That is evidently what he intended to convey. That is the 
 meaning- that nineteen-twentieths of the Irish people at home and 
 abroad will draw from his words ; but you will observe at the 
 same time that they are cautiously chosen, so as to g-ive Mr. Dillon 
 an escape by their innocent meaning-. This is a specimen of his 
 courag-e, and I invite all honourable men in Ireland to observe 
 his future action with regard to this. They will then see the 
 weighty evidence that this responsible gentleman had in his mind, 
 when he levelled against an Irish bishop the charge of having 
 been "captured" by the Eng'lish Government. 
 
 No doubt 
 
 I HAVE CONDEMNED THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN AND BOYCOTTING. 
 
 I believe them not only at variance with the very first elements of 
 civilized life, but unjust, and boycotting in particular as essentially 
 anti-Christian. The Supreme Head of the Church has confirmed 
 my judgment on them. There is as little doubt for a Catholic now 
 that the decree of the Holy Office condemning these practices, 
 binds his conscience as that he is forbidden to eat meat on Friday, 
 Mr. Dillon can satisfy himself of that any day by turning in and 
 asking Cardinal Manning if it is not so. If he wants it he can 
 get an official affirmation of it from his own bishop or archbishop 
 in Ireland. Is it not, then, intolerable that he should denounce me 
 in the House of Commons, and attempt to hold me up to the 
 hatred of my countrymen as their enemy, simply for discharging 
 my duty as a bishop, and teaching my people according to my 
 conscience ? No doubt it may have been a rash thing for me 
 single handed to provoke the anger of Mr. Dillon and his friends. 
 It might have been more in accordance with the secular wisdom 
 of temporisers in all times to hold my tongue so as to escape 
 personal annoyance. But these are all considerations for myself. 
 The question for the public is, am I or am I not within my rights 
 in thinking as a man, and teaching as a bishop, that the Plan of 
 Campaign and boycotting are against the law of God } If that 
 
 [49a 
 
14 
 
 question is answered in the affirmative I should like to know what 
 justification remains for 
 
 MR. Dillon's abominable charges. 
 
 And this suggests another grave question, which I beg to 
 submit to the consideration of thoughtful statesmen, such as 
 Mr. Parnell, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. Sexton, and Mr. Arthur 
 O'Connor. If Mr. Dillon, whether he has the right or not, has the 
 power, without check or remonstrance from any one of his party, 
 to denounce an Irish bishop as he has denounced me simply and 
 solely for my action in the exercise of my spiritual jurisdiction, 
 what guarantee is there, should Home Rule come, that all of us 
 bishops shall not find our authority crippled, not by words, but by 
 force ? Are there not interests enough arrayed to the death 
 against Home Rule to make it at least a matter of common 
 tactical prudence not to force the bishops in Ireland to review 
 their position in relation to it ? The lawfulness or unlav.'fulness 
 of the Plan of Campaign was a subject as fully within the 
 competence of the Holy See to decide as the validity of Henry 
 the Eighth's marriage. If we find Irish members of Parliament 
 using against the Holy See, when they are condemned, the very 
 language and arguments of the first English reformers — if we see 
 a repetition, so far as their limited power goes, by Mr. Dillon and 
 his friends of the conduct of those Englishmen who struck terror 
 into the body of English bishops, and ran blessed Fisher into jail, 
 may we not reasonably ask how will it be with the independence 
 of the Irish Church — how will it be with the unfettered intercourse 
 which we demand with Rome, when these gentlemen are not only 
 our representatives but our masters ? I commend that view of 
 things to the consideration of serious Home Rulers, and beg of 
 them not to drive us to compare the religious liberty we enjoy at 
 present with the prospects of things under Mr. Dillon as Minister 
 of Worship. 
 
 Again and again I have said I am a Home Ruler. At home 
 and abroad I have maintained the right of my country to self- 
 government. In so far as the agitation legitimately advances 
 that cause I am with it. I would join it to-morrow if I had any 
 assurance that the movement was to be purged from sinful 
 methods, but while Mr. Dillon and men like him. in defiance of 
 their own leader, are the practical leaders, I must only stand aloof. 
 I may illustrate my position by a humorous incident. Some time 
 ago great crowds attended the sermons of a revivalist here in 
 Limerick. At the end of a very vehement discourse he called 
 upon all those of his audience who wished to go to Heaven to 
 stand uj). All stood up except one Catholic young man, who 
 ought not to have been there at all. "Young man," said the 
 preacher solemnly, "do you not wish to go to Heaven ? " "Oh 
 494] 
 
16 
 
 yes, I do," said the young- man, " but not with that crowd." 
 Beg-g-ing you to excuse the length to which this letter has run, I 
 have the honour to be, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 •J< Edward Thomas, 
 
 Bishop of Limerick. 
 
 Mr. Dillon upon this replied in the following 
 manner, in a letter also addressed to the Editor of the 
 Freetna7is Journal. 
 
 To THE Editor of the '' Freeman." 
 
 Sir, — I have no intention of making- any reply to the letter of 
 Dr. ODwyer, which appears in your issue of to-day. I think I 
 am quite safe in leaving that letter to the judgment of the Irish 
 people. The only point in it which appears to me in the least 
 degree worthy of notice is the extract from my speech — in the 
 concluding- lines of which I am reported to have said — 
 
 " There never was a fouler stain cast upon the honour of Englana^ 
 nor a more intolerable grievance inflicted on the people of Ireland, than 
 when the right hon. gentleman succeeded in getting his Holiness to 
 send an agent to trade on the reverence of the Irish people." 
 
 I am quite certain I never used these words. I was speaking^ 
 all along of the action of the Government of Lord Salisbury, and, 
 so far as my memory carries me, I made no comment on any 
 action of His Holiness. My memory in this respect is borne out 
 by the context of my speech, by the Times report in which these 
 words are not found, and by the recollection of several friends who 
 were listenings to me, and whom I have consulted on this point, 
 — Yours sincerely, John Dillon. 
 
 July \^h, 1890. 
 
 The Bishop, however, having ascertained that the 
 contradiction of Mr. Dillon was not consistent with 
 proofs which were accessible to all, and which showed 
 that the offensive words denied were really used in the 
 House of Commons upon the nth July, published 
 these proofs in the following rejoinder to the Freeman. 
 
 To the Editor of the ''Freeman." 
 
 Limerick, 26th July, 1890. 
 Sir, — May I trouble you to print, and if possible side by side 
 the two following extracts. One is taken from Mr. Dillon's letter 
 
 [495 
 
16 
 
 which you published on 15th inst.. the other from Hansard's 
 Parliamentary report of Mr, Dillon's speech on nth inst. : — 
 
 ]Mr. Dillon's Letter, 
 I think I am quite safe in 
 leaving- that letter to the judge- 
 ment of the Irish people. The 
 only point in it which appears 
 to me in the least deg^ree 
 worthy of notice is the extract 
 from my speech, in the con- 
 cluding- lines of which I am 
 reported to have said : •' There 
 never was a fouler stain cast 
 upon the honour of Eng^land, 
 nor a more intolerable griev- 
 ance inflicted on the people of 
 Ireland, than when the rig-ht 
 honourable g-entleman suc- 
 ceeded in getting- His Holiness 
 to send an agent to trade on 
 the reverence of the Irish 
 people." I am quite certain I 
 never used those words. 
 
 Hansard's Report, 
 July ii, 1890 (1498). 
 
 I can tell him that we are far 
 more independent in polidcal 
 matters of the Court of Rome 
 than he and his uncle, who have 
 debased the character of 
 Englishmen by crawling to the 
 Pope and offering bribes to His 
 Holiness to aid in crushing the 
 Catholic people of Ireland, and 
 to inflict an intolerable wrong. 
 
 To some extent it succeeded, 
 ivheit an agent was brought from 
 Rome to go a?nong the people and 
 to trade on their reverence for 
 the Church to crush their political 
 aspirations. 
 
 The italics are mine. Now, sir, I think few will have the 
 hardihood to deny that this evidence puts Ijeyond all cavil the 
 accuracy of your representative's report of Mr. Dillon's speech, 
 and imposes on Mr. Dillon the necessity of offering some 
 explanation of it consistent with his veracity. It is a very serious- 
 position for any public man to occupy, and one from which no 
 vicarious flinging of dirt will ever extricate him. 
 I have the honour to be, sir, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 Edward Thomas. 
 
 Bishop of Limerick. 
 
 It may be well to remark here that "Hansard" 
 Parliamentary Reports are not published until some 
 days after the date of the proceedings they record, 
 and that Members have an opportunity of revising 
 their speeches, 
 
 Mr. Dillon took no notice of the Bishop's letter 
 just given. Meanwhile an attempt was made in 
 Limerick itself to bring popular clamour to support 
 496] 
 
17 
 
 Mr. Dillon, and to denounce the Bishop. These 
 efforts were only partially successful, notwithstanding 
 the well-known fact that Irish local bodies are nearly 
 all composed of the nominees of the National League. 
 -In the Limerick Corporation, extremely Nationalist in 
 its opinion, a motion condemning Dr. O'Dwyer was 
 defeated by a majority, much to the chagrin of the 
 Parnellites ; more vigourous measures were then 
 determined upon ; the Limerick branch of the League 
 revenged themselves upon the "unpatriotic" majority 
 of the Corporation by finally expelling them from 
 their ranks, and the leaders of the League arranged to 
 attack Dr. O'Dwyer in his own Cathedral city. A 
 great demonstration accordingly took place in Lim- 
 erick on Sunday, 24th August, calculated most 
 seriously to impair that pastoral liberty which a Bishop 
 is always supposed to enjoy in a Christian land, and 
 to interfere with his decisions upon moral questions. 
 A large concourse of people attended, whipped up 
 from the South of Ireland, and conveyed together by 
 special trains. It appears, however, that the most 
 respectable persons of Limerick and elsewhere 
 (Nationalist in politics) refused to participate in this 
 most shameful meeting. There were some thirteen 
 Parnellite Members of Parliament present, all so 
 called Catholics. The Member for the City (Mr. 
 Francis A. O'Keeffe) presided. Mr. Dillon and Mr. 
 Wm. O'Brien, the principal authors of the Plan of 
 Campaign, were the chief speakers. All Priests 
 were naturally absent from the scene. The speeches 
 deserve perusal, they will afford an insight into the 
 real forces at work in Ireland for the advancement of 
 Parnellism. 
 
 MR. DILLON. 
 
 Mr. John Dillon said so far as I myselt am concerned I never 
 had occasion to defend my character before the people of Ireland, 
 and I never wish (cheers). It would take a greater man than, 
 
 F 1 [497 
 
18 
 
 the Bishop of Limerick (groans) to put me on my defence (cheers). 
 I tell you from my heart, and I tell you the simple truth when I 
 say that if it were merely a question of my private character you 
 would not see me here to-day. I would not come to Limerick 
 to-day to defend my character or the character of any one of my 
 colleag-ues. I come here to give to the people of Limerick and 
 Munster the opportunity of judging between our policy and the 
 policy of the Bishop (cheers and groans). I come here to ask 
 the people of Munster whether in politics — I speak not of religion 
 — but whether in politics they are prepared to follow our leader- 
 ship (cheers and cries of "We are"), or the leadership of the 
 Bishop of Limerick (no, and cheers). If the result of this meeting- 
 left the slightest doubt upon my mind as to the feelings of the 
 people of Munster on this issue— that is, the political issue — you 
 would hear of me no more in Irish politics. I say, then, that the 
 great significance of this meeting is this, that you are here in 
 your tens of thousands (cheers) to tell the Irish nation and the 
 scattered Irish race in millions all over the world who will read 
 of this meeting to-morrow, that your confidence in the Irish party 
 IS unshaken (loud cheers) and that you don't believe that 
 
 WE ARE SWINDLERS AND ROBBERS 
 
 of the people (cheers). You have been told that we are collecting 
 money to put in our own pockets (no) and make profit out of this 
 agitation (groans and no). Well, the people of Ireland will 
 know what is the deliberate judgment of the Catholic people of 
 Munster (loud cheers). I see around me to-day tens of 
 thousands of people who are as devoted to the Catholic Church 
 as any in the world, or as their fathers who had shed their blood 
 and parted with every bit of property rather than forsake their 
 religion (cheers). I see men around me who know what devotion 
 means and who are ready to-morrow if the occasion demanded 
 to make the same sacrifice (loud cheers) which their fathers did 
 for their religion (cheers). But while they are as devoted to the 
 Catholic Church as any in the world ("and more so") they are 
 as free in politics as any in the world (cheers), and they have 
 proved on more than one occasion how well they know to draw the 
 line between politics and religion f cheers). Well, I say you know 
 how to draw the line between politics and religion ; let me say this 
 also, that I scorn the man who talks of op[)osition between Irish- 
 men's religion and Irishmen's politics (loud cheers). There is no 
 opposition between them, and the man who is a good Catholic is 
 a good Nationalist (cheers), and the best Nationalists arc, to my 
 own knowledge, very frequently the best Catholics, too (cheers). 
 Many of those men who are finding fault with us to-day would, I 
 
 498] 
 
19 
 
 think, if a bitter persecution came, be found deserting- the Church 
 (hear, hear). They are what we might call 
 
 FAIR WEATHER RELIGION PEOPLE, 
 
 Let me say just one word to state to you accurately what it is 
 that gave rise to that unhappy controversy between myself and 
 the members of the Irish Party on the one side and the Bishop of 
 Limerick on the other (groans). I used SOme very 
 
 strong- language which it might have been 
 better for me not to have used to a man 
 holding so high and sacred a position, but 
 v^hat I say is this, that I am not here to with- 
 draw or explain anything whatever (loud cheers;. 
 
 I say this, that the people of Ireland, the Irish Catholics should 
 know exactly what occurred (hear, hear). I used that language 
 in reference to one single act of the Bishop"s, and that was just 
 when he wrote a letter to the Freemaft's Journal to justify the 
 eviction of the Glensharrold tenants (groans), and to state that 
 these poor people deserved no public sympathy in their misfor- 
 tune(groans). When I read that letter in the Freeman, side by side 
 with the account of the eviction, 1 mUSt COnfesS it made 
 
 my blood boil (cheers) to think that a Catholic 
 could be found in Ireland, no matter what 
 were the merits of the case, to justify the 
 eviction of his own people. Well, 1 used very 
 strong epithets in characterising that act, and 
 1 still believe that 1 was justified in using that 
 
 language (cheers). But it is perfectly open to debate 
 whether I was justified or not in that opinion. Since I used that 
 language the Bishop (groans) has published an extraordinary 
 document in which he charges not only myself but all the members 
 of the Irish Party who have worked along with me in the Plan of 
 Campaign with a variety of detestable crimes, and has made 
 villainous charges m.uch of the same character as those which 
 have been levelled against our party by the most ignorant and 
 rabid of the Tory party in England and by the late lamented 
 Tmes newspaper (laughter and cheers). 
 
 Well, for my part, I have not the slightest intention of entering- 
 into a controversy with his lordship. The issue between us is an 
 exceedingly simple one. I, on my part, have done nothing but 
 condemn an act which to me appears to be a baneful and outra- 
 geous one for a Catholic Bishop to do (loud cheers). High and 
 sacred as his office is, I say that so long as I possess the confidence 
 of the Irish people I am justified in expressing my opinion on any 
 act committed by his lordship when he becomes a politician and 
 takes an active part in politics (cheers). On the other hand, his 
 lordship has stated deliberately to the people of Ireland, in a 
 
 [499 
 
20 
 
 written letter, that in his opinion I and, recollect, other members- 
 of our party with whom he had no quarrel whatever, were 
 swindlers of the lowest type, and men who did not hesitate to 
 plunder the poor for their own benefit (loud groans), men who 
 were false to their pledges, false to their country, and deserving^ 
 of the execration of all mankind (renewed groaning"). That is 
 the deliberate opinion of 
 
 THE BISHOP OF LIMERICK ; 
 
 and, as I said already, it is for the Irish people to judge between 
 us (prolonged cheering). The only thing I shall say further in 
 reference to the painful incident is this, that while it is to all of us, 
 to you, I am sure, as it is to me, a most painful and humiliating 
 thing to find even one Irish Catholic Bishop capable of such acts 
 and uttering such words at the present day, we have at least this 
 consolation, that there never was a time in the history of the Irish 
 National struggle when the Irish Episcopacy was so national and 
 so sound (loud cheers), and that the appeal that Dr. O'Dwyer 
 addressed to the other bishops of Ireland to stand by his side 
 against that execrable ruffian John Dillon (prolonged cheering), 
 that appeal has not been answered, and it will not be answered 
 (renewed cheers), for there is not one bishop in Ireland who will 
 take his stand by the side of Dr. O'Dwyer and adopt his senti- 
 ments (enthusiastic cheers). The day is gone by, and I thank 
 God for it, when anyone can sow dissension between the religion 
 of the Irish people and the nationality of the Irish people, which 
 it has always been our proudest boast have been kept in harmony, 
 bound together by links which no Government and no coercion 
 can tear asunder (cheers). The religion and nationality of the 
 Irish people are bound to-day by stronger bonds than ever, which 
 no power, whether it be a Catholic bishop or a Coercion Govern- 
 ment, will ever sunder (cheers). 
 
 Mr. Dillon ended his speech by a panegyric on boycotting. 
 
 MR. WM. O'BRIEN. 
 Mr. William O'Brien, IM.P., who was enthusiastically welcomed, 
 said — Fellow countrymen, you have proved once again to-day that 
 the peoi)le of Limerick have never been called upon to strike a 
 blow for Ireland without ])roving themselves worthy of men and 
 of women who once held the walls of Limerick against assailants 
 a little more formidable than the Most Rev. Dr. O'Dwyer. It 
 seems laughable enough to mention in the same breath to an Irish 
 crowd the name of John Dillon and the name of Bishop O'Dwyer 
 (laughter). It is a cruel thing you should be called upon so soon 
 again to defend yourself against the restless spirit of antagonism 
 to the Irish cause which is for ever lurking in the midst of you in 
 a quarter from which you are entitled to expect sympathy, and to- 
 500] 
 
21 
 
 ipirhich you would only too gladly extend reverence and love. Bu^ 
 the question has been forced upon you, and to-day, in the heart of 
 his own diocese, and from the flower of the Catholic community 
 of Limerick, Dr. O'Dwyer has received an answer and a rebuke/ 
 the most moderate, but the most solemn and most irresistible that 
 ever sounded in the ear of an Irish prelate. We do not for one 
 moment grudge Dr. O'Dwyer (cheers) his right to think or say 
 anything he chooses. Not for a moment. What we object to is 
 his habit of turning a question of politics into a question of 
 religion the moment the argument goes against himself (hear, 
 hear, and applause). 
 
 DR. o'dWYER, the politician, 
 
 has a perfect right to hold his own opinion about us, and the Irish 
 people have just as good a right to hold their own opinion about 
 Dr. O'Dwyer (hear, hear). But he is not content with that, for 
 whenever he finds that the Irish people are not going to take their 
 politics from him, are not going to dip in the same dish with the 
 Balfours (groans) and with the Delmeges (groans) he turns round 
 and he clothes himself in the sacred garb of the episcopacy, and 
 he anathematises as enemies to religion every man who differs 
 from him, and he takes every attack that is made upon his own 
 mischievious political pranks as if it were an attack upon the person 
 of the Supreme Pontiff himself (cheers). That is what we come here 
 to-day to protest against, and we come not so much as Nationalists 
 as Catholics, for if we were enemies of religion we would only be 
 too proud to stand up and to chuckle when men like Dr. O'Dwyer 
 are introducing into Ireland these fatal elements of discord which 
 have the power of religion over some of the fairest province of 
 the country ; but the faith of our fathers is as dear to the men 
 who are listening to me to-day as it is to Dr. O'Dwyer (cheers, 
 and cries of "more so "), and if that faith has been saved from 
 the attacks of irreligion in Ireland to-day, it is because in every 
 hour of danger independent Catholic laymen like Mr. Dillon 
 (cheers) — aye, and like heroic prelates that I could name (cries 
 of "Archbishop Croke and Archbishop Walsh") — have risen up, 
 have confronted and confounded every endeavour to turn the faith 
 for which Ireland suffered centuries of long martyrdom and dis- 
 honour, into the handmaid of the coercionist and exterminator ot, 
 the Irish people (cheers). As far as John Dillon is concerned, the 
 libels, the abominable and filthy libels, that have been poured out 
 upon him can only soil, can only sully the lips that uttered them 
 (cheers). I venture to say that, as a politician, if you were to seek 
 out a specimen of a cranky and cross-grained Irish politician it is 
 Dr. O'Dwyer. He is always safe to be on the opposite side to us, 
 and his friendship is likely to be an absolute harbinger of failure 
 to every cause which has the misfortune, to incur his friendship 
 
 [001 
 
22 
 
 (cheers). His whole life, meantime, has been a graveyard strewn 
 with the dead bones of his failures and blunders (cheers). 
 
 THE CAMPAIGNERS ON THE GLENSHARROLD ESTATE 
 
 had a cause so absolutely just that the Bishop himself was 
 obliged throug-h his Vicar-General to exempt them from the 
 operation of Monsig-nor Persico's mission*^ — that is to say, in the 
 only case in his diocese where the Plan of Campaign was in force 
 he was oblig-ed to admit that Monsig'nor Persico was absolutely 
 WTong-, and that the Plan of Campaig-n was absolutely right 
 (cheers) — that Plan of Campaign which I have never hesitated to 
 defend in the open day, and which I am prouder to-day than ever 
 to defend from this platform (loud cheers). Very well, the 
 Bishop saw he was in a dilemma, and he tried to get out of it by 
 patching up an agreement of his own and forcing- the tenants to 
 adopt it. Now, he went down unauthorised and uninvited, and 
 he tried to intimidate the tenantry into accepting his agreement 
 by telling them that their leaders would desert them and leave 
 them to starve. He tried even to purchase their assent by 
 offering to subscibe the sum of £ico to the sum they were to pay 
 for their miserable rack rents, and he did all that man could do 
 openly and secretly to drag these tenants into an agreement 
 which was 
 
 CONDEMNED BY HIS OWN VALUER, MR. GREENE-BARRY 
 
 (cheers), and then what followed.? He failed, as he invariably 
 does (cheers). The people stuck to their leaders. They stuck 
 to their rights, and then what happened ? Because these people, 
 whose cause was so just that they were exempted from the 
 strictures of the Rescript, these people who were so poor that he 
 felt obliged to subscribe £ioo to eke out their rack rents, because 
 these miserable, these wronged people refused to be led by him 
 Jnto an agreement condemned by his own valuer, he came out in 
 the T/ms newspaper on the morning of the eviction campaign 
 with a letter which was directly calculated to rob the Glensharrold 
 tenantry of that English sympathy which he knew was their onTy- 
 safety and only protection against the blows of the exterminator 
 (cheers). That was the transaction which John Dillon con- 
 demns (cheers), and I venture to say deliberately here to-day 
 that a more unworthy, a more cruel, and a more shameful 
 transaction no Irish prelate ever had to answer for before, and 
 God forbid that any Irish prelate should ever have to answer 
 again (loud cheers). Dr. O'Dwyer tells us that he is 
 
 " NOT GOING TO HEAVEN WITH OUR CROWD " 
 
 (laughter). Well, that is a sort of pleasantry with a smack of 
 
 * Monsignor Persico was the Apostolic Commissioner sent by the Pope to- 
 Ireland in the summer of 1887. 
 02] 
 
23 
 
 irreverence that I confess I would have thoug^ht more worthy ot 
 a revivalist like Fiddler Joss than of a Catholic bishop (cheers). 
 But let me just remind his lordship that our crowd contains not 
 only five-sixths of the Irish people and of their representatives, 
 aye, nineteen-twentieths of the flower and substance of the Irish 
 race throughout the world, but our crowd contains also nine- 
 tenths of the beloved bishops and archbishops of Ireland (cheers) 
 — men whose sanctity will bear comparison even with Dr. 
 O'Dwyer's, and of whose wisdom the Irish people have had 
 somewhat better proofs (loud cheers). That is our crowd 
 (cheers). As far as we are concerned, our crowd will sweep 
 onward without him, and will conquer in spite of him (loud 
 cheers), and the day will come when possibly Dr. O'Dwyer 
 himself may recognise that the Catholic laymen of Limerick 
 have to-day taken the true means, the manly means, of preserving" 
 that life-giving" and affectionate union of faith and nationality 
 which runs through the blood of the Irish race (loud cheers), 
 and for which Sarsfield once held the walls of Limerick against 
 renegades within the walls as well as against King William 
 and Dutchmen outside (prolonged cheers). — Freeman's JournaU 
 25 th August, 1890. 
 
 The proceedings of the 24th August terminated by 
 a dinner given that same evening in one of the hotels 
 in Limerick, at which the heroes of the demonstration 
 were present ; public speeches took place, some 
 sentences from which are well worth recording. 
 
 MR. WM. O'BRIEN'S REMARKS. 
 
 Mr. Wm. O'Brien : He should only say one word in reference 
 to the demonstration of that day,, which to his mind was a 
 splendid specimen of the spirit of sturdiness of independence 
 (cheers), which was rapidly converting what was only an after- 
 ainner sentiment of " Ireland a nation " into a patent, a tangible, 
 and an irresistible reality (applause). The people of Limerick 
 had, he thought, shown to-day, and that without disrespect to the 
 sacred garb of an ecclesiastic (cheers) that no amount of canvass- 
 ing, no amount of ear-wigging, or of threats (cheers) could 
 prevent the people of Limerick from taking the measure of a 
 politician who was the hero of the Limerick Chronide and the darling 
 of the County Club (cheers). They were intolerant forsooth, be- 
 cause some of them had been naughty enough to expel from the 
 National League, and to promise to expel from the Corporation 
 as well, the men who acquiesced in the imputations upon John 
 Dillon (cheers) So the people of Dublin were intolerant when 
 
 [503 
 
24 
 
 they drove out of the corporation of Dublin the men who refused 
 the freedom of Dublin to Charles Stewart Parnell (applause). 
 But they did it and the result was, that the Dublin Corporation 
 was to-day one of the impregnable strongholds of Irish nationality 
 (cheers). God knew no man longed and pined more earnestly 
 than he did for the time when this strife of theirs would be over 
 and when there would be the fullest liberty for the widest differences. 
 They were in the midst of a struggle for the very life of their 
 nation — a struggle in which the great Archbishop of Cashel (loud 
 cheers) once told them there must be no neutrals (cheers) . . . 
 They took the consequences, and so must those who dared not 
 utter one word of honest protest when John Dillon was publicly 
 assailed as a swindler and poltroon (cheers). These men 
 
 defended themselves upon the whimpering 
 plea that they were Catholics first and Irish- 
 men afterwards ("oh!"). He said that cry was 
 a fraudulent and dishonest cry (loud cheers). They 
 
 might as well talk of being men of flesh first and men of blood 
 afterwards, or being men with a right leg first and a left leg 
 afterwards. The men who would defend themselves for being 
 bad Irishmen on the score of being good Catholics were simply 
 men who were cowardly trimmers f^rst (loud cheers) and slaves 
 and hypocrites and renegades after (cheers). As far as they were 
 concerned they held on their course, and they quietly and firmly 
 informed the Bishop of Limerick that his political action had given 
 grief and scandal to the Catholics (loud cheers). They had 
 informed the Bishop that was an insult, not merely to the repre- 
 sentatives of the Irish people, but to the most illustrious bishops 
 and archbishops of Ireland, who were as cordially with them as 
 any man in this country, and whose little finger was dearer to 
 the heart of the Irish race than Dr. O'Dwyer's whole body (cheers). 
 He could only hope that in every hour of danger for the Irish 
 cause that Ireland would find as true men as the men of Limerick, 
 and men who would act as bravely as they had done 
 
 MR. DILLON. 
 
 Mr. John Dillon, M.P.: He thought it would be plain to every- 
 one in that room that those members of the Corporation of Limerick 
 who voted against the resolution which was moved the other day, 
 conferred a public benefit on the people of Ii'cland, because their 
 action was the indirect cause of the holding of the meeting 
 which had taken place that day, and in their blindness they threw 
 down the challenge to the people of the South of Ireland which 
 Was taken up and answered in a fashion which he thought would 
 satisfy those gentlemen (cheers). For his part, he rejoiced that 
 that meeting had been held, and he thought they would believe 
 
 •on 
 
25 
 
 him when he said that as a cause for that rejoicing' the smallest 
 considerations were those as regarded his own conduct (hear, 
 hear) 
 
 He came to accept the challenge which was levelled, not 
 against his character, but against the policy which he had 
 preached to the people of Ireland ; and against the deadly at- 
 tempt, so far as it lay with the man who made it, to shake and 
 shatter the confidence which had been placed in the party of 
 which he was a member by the people of Ireland, the confidence 
 which had based and built up the present National power, which 
 was the hope of, and the salvation of, the Irish people, and the 
 destruction of which would involve the destruction of the people 
 of this country (cheers). It was for that reason he came to 
 Limerick, and that his friends came with him. They had ac- 
 cepted that challenge. It was never looked upon by him as a 
 personal issue. The issue was this — Whether after ten years of 
 splendid struggle, after success unparalleled in the history of 
 Ireland, that now at the invitation of the Bishop of Limerick the 
 people of this country should stop, should return to the basest 
 form of Whiggery which they had emancipated them from, and 
 crawl at the foot of any English Minister in power, and cast 
 away the weapons which it was their pride and boast to have de- 
 vised and placed in their hands, which for ten years they have 
 used to such tremendous effect. That was the question and 
 issue laid before the people of Munster that day, and they had 
 answered with no hesitancy, and left no doubt, he trusted, on 
 the public mind of this country (cheers). .... 
 
 Looking back over the history of the land question, was there 
 in the whole history of mankind a more heartbreaking story ? 
 How many thousands, aye hundreds of thousands, of virtuous 
 homes had been desolated, and their inhabitants reduced to 
 slavery. Why .? Because men like the Bishop of Limerick had 
 shattered the organisation and the hopes of the people in the 
 hour of their triumph. And when he saw the course that was 
 being pursued by Bishop O'Dwyer, he said to himself, "Thanks 
 be to God, the time had gone by when another brass band could 
 be started in Ireland to ride triumphant to power and place on 
 the smoking ruins of the homes of the tenantry in Ireland " 
 (applause). In 1855 there were gallant men and able and self- 
 sacrificing men fighting the cause of the Irish tenants, but in 
 1855, instead of one Castle bishop in Ireland, they had arch- 
 bishops and bishops on the wrong side, which they had not now. 
 
 The people of Ireland would not give up 
 boycotting and the Plan of Campaign at the 
 dictation of an individual ; to-day there was not 
 
 another bishop in Ireland, with perhaps one exception, who would 
 
 [505' 
 
26 
 
 take his stand on that same policy, and who would dare to challenge 
 the policy of the Irish National Party (cheers). He thought they 
 had every reason to be thankful for that. At the time he thought 
 it was a good thing that this occasion should have arisen to shov/ 
 to the whole world and to the people of England, and their own 
 in America and Australia, that there existed in the hearts of the 
 people of Ireland a spirit of independence which no outside power 
 can crush or put down, and in this great present movement for 
 Irish liberty those disasters and those misfortunes to which he had 
 alluded could not be, and never would be, repeated (cheers). — 
 Freeman s J ournal^ 2^ih August, 1890. 
 
 The Free??ians Journal is essentially the Parnellite 
 Catholic organ of Ireland; Catholic in one sense, but 
 exceedingly Parnellite (as will appear) in every other ; 
 it belongs to a company which is largely composed of 
 Irish Roman Catholic clergy. An analysis of the 
 shareholders show that out of 565 shareholders 100 
 are Catholic clergymen holding 2,229 of the ten 
 thousand ^5 Preference Shares, Archbishops Walsh 
 and Croke being among the number. These few 
 words of explanation are necessary in order to intro- 
 duce the observations which are to be found in the 
 various leading articles of this paper upon the Limerick 
 scandal. On the 25th August, the day after the 
 Limerick demonstration, the Freeman s Journal^ in a 
 long article upon this incident, contains the following 
 most characteristic sentence : — 
 
 And if he (the Bishop) have a plan, a practical plan, to effect 
 the national regeneration of Ireland before we are all in our 
 graves, in the name of common sense let him propound it and 
 work it out, and undergo labour and incur danger for it, and 
 prove by his works that he is as earnest and as good an Irishman 
 as John Dillon or William O'Brien. They are not wedded to 
 boycotting, if the Bishop have a surer and a swifter way which he 
 will work out with them, and which will have as practical results. 
 If he have not this plan, in the name, then, of truth, let the Bishop 
 of Limerick use all that he can of their plan, which they have 
 dared and suffered for, and use it with them and with his brethren 
 of the Episcopacy who are with them, and who are as good 
 Irishmen and as good Bishops as he is. 
 506] 
 
27 
 
 - It should be noted that, notwithstanding Dr. 
 O'Dwyer's letter of the 26th July, already given 
 neither in the speeches at Limerick, nor yet in the 
 article just quoted, was there one single word spoken 
 to deny, repudiate or explain the language against the 
 Holy See which Mr. Dillon was so categorically 
 accused to have used in the House of Commons on 
 the nth July, and against which the Bishop of 
 Limerick had so eloquently protested. This important 
 matter was completely and entirely ignored. 
 
 Dr. O'Dwyer, having read the proceedings which 
 took place in Limerick on the 24th August, lost no 
 time in writing the following letter, which appeared in 
 the Freeman s Journal oi the 26th August. 
 
 To THE Editor of the "Freeman's Journal." 
 
 Limerick, 2.^ih August, i8go. 
 
 Sir, — Notwithstanding the criticism of your article of to-day, I 
 venture to think that a good body of Catholic opinion in Ireland 
 will not endorse your judgment on yesterday's meeting, or regard 
 it in any other light than as an attempt by popular intimidation 
 to silence everyone who presumes to disobey the present leaders 
 of politics in Ireland. Whatever be the merits of the controversy 
 between Mr. Dillon and myself, I should like to know how far 
 does the shouting of a multitude go to settle them. Whether I 
 am a dastard or an unfaithful bishop to the people, or whether 
 Mr. Dillon has acted ignobly in presence of the Coercion Act, I 
 maintain it is an improper thing to come into a bishop's cathedral 
 city and there by denunciations of him to rouse the passions of 
 his people against him as a mercenary and a traitor, and if it is 
 allowed to go without protest it will become a fatal precedent. 
 
 But what particularly I object to in yesterday's proceedings 
 and in your article of to-day is the utterly unfair misrepresentation 
 which precludes from the consideration of the public the great, 
 solemn, and supreme issues that were raised by 
 
 MR. Dillon's memorable speech 
 
 in Parliament, by the clever plan of concentrating attention on 
 the merest fringe of the whole controversy. Suppose that every 
 charge that I am alleged to have made against Mr. Dillon and 
 his colleagues was actually made by me and demonstrated to be 
 false, and then that the whole of these parts of my letter was 
 blotted out and judgment given against me upon them, does not 
 
 [507 
 
28 
 
 enoug-h remain to demand explanation from Catholic members 
 of Parliament addressing" a larg-e Catholic assemblag-e, and from 
 a Catholic newspaper such as the Freeman which mig'ht well be 
 expected to attach due importance to them ? But yet Mr. Dillon 
 and Mr. O'Brien yesterday, and you, sir, to-day, make believe 
 that the only question at issue is the personal honour of the Irish 
 party; and g-etting- a victory, as you think, on that, you shout 
 that the whole cause is g-ained. The whole Catholic sense of this 
 country was stirred by Mr. Dillon's unfortunate speech in the House 
 of Commons. I do not suppose that you could find a Catholic in 
 Ireland, lay or ecclesiastic, to defend it. So bad and indefensible 
 was it that Mr. Dillon had the hardihood to deny that he ever 
 spoke a v/hole sentence in which the poison was centred, and 
 yet neither then nor even now, when you sit on the lofty eminence 
 of your editoral chair in judgment upon us all, do you think it 
 important enough for even the smallest reference. May I ask 
 you, sir, again, if you have any recollection of publishing a short 
 letter from me in which you printed side by side your own report 
 and Hansard's of the sentence which Mr. Dillon denied having" 
 spoken, and, if so, whether in a fair appreciation of the contro- 
 versy you might not have thought it necessary to note that 
 
 MR. DILLON HAS BEEN ABSOLUTELY SILENT 
 
 about the most damaging evidence against him .'' That was the 
 one point in my indictment of him which he thought worthy of 
 notice. All the rest he left loftily to the verdict of the Irish 
 nation, and I suppose yesterdays meeting, and yet when he is 
 convicted of a false statement in this denial he attempts to throw 
 dust in the eyes of the public by personal issues, and you, sir, 
 coolly observing- the game, back him out in the manoeuvre. But 
 I take it that whatever explanation may be forthcoming consis- 
 tent with Mr. Dillon's veracity, we may assume now, after 
 yesterJay's silence, that the line is drawn at Rome, and for the 
 future the sacred person of the Vicar of Christ will be held above 
 all attacks. That alone is something gained, although you may 
 think very lowly of me as a bishop, I assure you in all honesty 
 that I regard it as a result worth all the annoyance of achieving 
 it. Towards the end of your article you invite me if I have a 
 plan for the regeneration of my country to propound it. I 
 discuss this, not for the j)urpose of scoring any point against you, 
 but because it is a matter of very grave importance. I am not a 
 politician. I have another profession. My mission is to teach to 
 the people of the Christian religion the duties that it imports, 
 and my interference, such as it has been, in public affairs, has 
 been only in discharge of it. Now, soon after my consecration 
 I was confronted with the practices of 
 508] 
 
29 
 
 BOYCOTTING AND THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN, 
 
 and after the best consideration which I could give them I became 
 convinced of their utterly sinful character. Soon a judgment 
 followed exempt from the uncertainty with which I should neces- 
 sarily regard my own. The Pope spoke. A decree sanctioned 
 by him personally, and promulgated by the Holy Office by his 
 command, was published absolutely condemning them. I have 
 studied that condemnation to the best of my ability, and affirm on 
 my responsibility that there is not in canon law or theology a 
 shadow of a shade of grounds for doubting its binding force uponr 
 our consciences. Nay more, I am convinced it is my duty as a 
 bishop, by every legitimate means in my power, to give effect to 
 that teaching of the Head of the Church. I am within my rights 
 in so doing-. Not only that, but is it not my clear duty when 
 the Pope has spoken on the question of moral law to enforce 
 respect and obedience to his word ? With me, then, it is not a 
 question whether the Plan of Campaign and boycotting are 
 effectual means for any end, but whether they are lawful means ; 
 and I tell you plainly that if the use of them freed Ireland from 
 political thraldom to-morrow, and established a Parliament in 
 Dublin, and diffused wealth and prosperity throughout the length 
 and breadth of the land, I should say — I should have to say as a 
 Catholic — we must not do evil that good may come. It is not a 
 question that admits of compromise. It is one of right or wrong, 
 and therefore it is altogether beside the issue to ask me to 
 propound an alternative. You simply ask me to acquiesce in 
 sin if I cannot find a more effectual way to success. That I will 
 not do. If I were a simple priest in a parish I would stand aside 
 and rigorously abstain from all interference in the politics of 
 men who persist in 
 
 DEFYING THE HEAD OF THE CHURCH 
 
 and bringing his authority into contempt, but, being a bishop, I 
 cannot without cowardice shirk the obligation of teaching my 
 clergy and my people the course which they are bound to follow. 
 Furthermore, to be very frank, I am distinctly of opinion that the 
 persistence of the Irish people in disobedience to the Holy See, 
 and worse, in the impugning of its authority, will, like a canker, 
 eat into the heart of their faith, and leave it without vitality for 
 the hour of trial that may come. Loyality to Rome is the 
 foundation of the Catholic system, and whoever impairs that is 
 undermining the people's faith. The legend planted prominently 
 on one of their banners read, " Our religion from Rome, our 
 politics from home," and that sentiment has been the burden of 
 Mr. Dillon's speech in the House of Commons, and of Mr. O'Brien's 
 equally scandalous speech at Manchester, and is the underlying 
 principle of yesterday's arguments. May I ask them what do 
 
 [509 
 
30 
 
 they mean by religion ? Are the Ten Commandments included 
 in it ? May Rome inform them authoritatively whether certain 
 actions are violations of the Commandments as being- against 
 justice and charity ? If not, then they mean, whatever they say, 
 not only our politics, but our religion, from home. Private 
 judgment for our actions, and we ourselves, and not the Pope, are 
 to be the expounders of the moral law. 
 
 MR. o'bRIEX proclaims 
 
 " That Plan of Campaign which I have never hesitated to defend 
 in the open day, and which I am prouder to-day than ever to 
 defend from this platform." And that is his attitude in presence 
 of a method which the supreme authority of the Church has 
 condemned as unlawful, and when I refuse to associate myselt 
 with Catholics thus in revolt against the Head of the Church he 
 charges me with " turning a question of politics into one of 
 religion," and proclaims that he has shining in his political 
 firmament ecclesiastics such as Dr. Croke and Dr. Walsh. Now, 
 no mau in Ireland has more reverence for those distinguished 
 dignitaries than I have. But, even if it were true, as it is not, 
 that Mr. O'Brien or Mr. Dillon had them on their side, I am not 
 ashamed to say that I prefer to range myself with the Vicar of 
 Christ. 
 
 It was in this connection that I interfered in the Glensharrold 
 case. My principal concern for them was to g'et them out of a 
 combination which they knew was condemned, and at the same 
 time to obtain for them the most favourable terms. I had no 
 motive but their good, and it is only the reckless malice of delib- 
 erate slanderers that can think of coupling my name with the 
 landlord's interest in the matter. After long- negotiations, the 
 details of which I have already published, I obtained a settlement 
 that I thought the people oug-ht to accept. Practically, it wiped 
 out over two thousand pounds arrears and ]Dermanently reduced 
 the rent by over 50 per cent, but Mr. Dillon and his friends 
 thought otherwise, and would not allow the tenants to settle 
 unless they got five per cent. more. I said before, and I repeat 
 it, that no sensible man will believe that such a course was taken 
 simply in the interests of the poor tenants. The difference 
 between what they were offered and what Mr. Dillon and Mr. 
 O'Brien would accept amounted to £25 a year between forty- 
 seven tenants, and I say that it was 
 
 CRUELTY OF THE VERY WORST TYPE 
 
 to these poor people to force them to undergo the sorrow of 
 eviction for such a paltry sum. The people were anxious to 
 settle. Just before I published my letter on the case I held my 
 episcopal visitation in that parish. One of the tenants came to 
 310] 
 
31 
 
 me by nig-'nt with a list of the names of his fellow-tenants who 
 were ready to pay their rents, to g'et my advice. I told him that, 
 in my opinion, they would make a g'reat mistake if they aban- 
 doned their holding-s, and that they oug-ht to pay. What do you 
 think was the question he then asked, " If we pay will you protect 
 us? " "Yes, I will,'" I said, "to the best of my ability,'' and it 
 was for the purpose of exposing^ the unreasonable tyranny which 
 was drivings these poor people to destruction that I wrote the 
 letter that Mr. Dillon has described in terms so becoming-. And 
 now that I have referred to the case, let me lay a few facts before 
 the public that may interest those of them who understand 
 ag^ricultural affairs. " Is it not a hard case for me " said one of 
 the tenants, "to have to leave my poor house." I inquired into 
 his circumstances, and here they are taken down from his own 
 lips. " I hold seventy-five acres of mountain land, on which I 
 have fourteen milch cows, twelve two year olds, ten j^earling- 
 heifers, three horses, and eight fat pig's, with plenty of turf." 
 And what do you think is his rent under the terms I have got for 
 him? Twenty pounds a year. I told him that he would be a 
 lunatic to abandon such a holding and to go out upon the world. 
 But what was it to Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien, who are playing 
 
 A BIG GAME FOR POLITICAL STAKES, 
 
 if there was sorrow and heartbreak in that poor home ? That 
 tenant and several others have taken my advise, and are happy 
 now, and wide is the difference between them and their poor 
 evicted brethren. 
 
 There is first an explanation which I desire to add — first, with 
 regard to the word "ostensibly" in my former letter. Although 
 Mr. Dillon, after his indecent repetition yesterday of his insults 
 spoken in the House of Commons, deserves little consideration 
 at my hands, I think it right to say that I never meant to impute 
 personal dishonesty to him, and then there is another phrase 
 which I am told has given offence in quarters where I should be 
 very sorry to offend. By the " crowd " with whom I would not 
 associate, I meant those, and those only, who, as Mr. Dillon and 
 Mr. O'Brien, advocate and defend the Plan of Campaign and 
 boycotting in defiance of the condemnation of the Holy See. 
 With such people I cannot enter into alliance. They may 
 denounce me. They may hound on my people against me. I 
 hold my authority not from politicians, not from the people, and 
 while God spares me to govern this diocese I shall maintain, to 
 the best of my poor ability, my own personal independence and 
 the rights and prerogatives of the Vicar of Christ. 
 I am, sir, your obedient servant, 
 
 »>p Edward Thomas, 
 
 Bishop of Limerick. 
 [511 
 
32 
 
 Thereupon the " Catholic " Freeman s fournal com. 
 merited upon the letter as follows : — 
 
 \Freemans /otirnal AvtAclQ, 26th August, 1890.] 
 
 The Bishop of Limerick falls back on the Pope this morning-. 
 It is his favourite manoeuvre, and strateg-ic, too, covering- his 
 retreat. But his Lordship is not content with getting- behind the 
 Papal throne. Picturing us "on the lofty eminence of the 
 editorial chair," pronouncing judgment on everybody. Dr. 
 O'Dvvyer modestly perches himself on the top of the Castle of 
 St. Angelo, and lays down the law urbi et orhi with a dogmatism 
 which puts the Pontiff in the Vatican into a second seat. Is 
 there, we ask, no orthodox Bishop in Ireland but his Lordship of 
 Limerick 1 If Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien and the other popular 
 leaders who have incurred the Bishop's wrath be the rebels 
 against spiritual authority described by Dr. O'Dwyer, how is it 
 that nine-tenths of the twenty-eight Bishops are warm friends of 
 those gentlemen ? And wherefore, we wonder, is it that when 
 opportunity presents itself the most distinguished in rank and 
 fame of Dr. O'Dwyer's Episcopal brethren delight to do them 
 honour } Are they all wrong ? Is Dr. O'Dwyer alone right .' 
 Is everybodv wrong but himself and Mr. Balfour? Far be it 
 from us to chop theology, moral or otherwise, with the Bishop ot 
 Limerick. He is jealous of intrusion into his domain. He denies 
 Mr. Dillon's right even to enter into his Cathedral City and 
 venture to disagree with him. In the same breath he cries out 
 that he is no politician. But what does he do ? Being- no 
 politician, he turns a question of politics into a question of 
 religion the moment the argument goes against himself. We 
 are not so illiberal or so slippery as Dr. ODwyer. What Mr. 
 O'Brien said on Sunday we repeat. Dr. O'Dwyer, the politician, 
 has a perfect right to hold his own opinion about us, and the 
 Irish people have just as good a right to hold their own opinion 
 about Dr. ODwyer. But he is not content with that, for when- 
 over he finds that the Irish people are not going to take their 
 I^olitics from him, he turns round and he clothes himself in the 
 sacred garb of the Episcopacy, and he anathematises as an 
 enemy to religion every man who differs from him, and he takes 
 every attack that is made upon his own mischievous political 
 pranks as if it were an attack upon the person of the Supreme 
 Pontiff himself. 
 
 The Bishop is a doughty dialectician, and one never can be 
 quite sure when he is in his political warpaint, and when clad in 
 the Roman purple. Hey, presto ! He changes with the magical 
 celerity of a wizard. At one moment he is calling names like a 
 512] 
 
88 
 
 fishwife. The next he hits you with the whole Ten Command- 
 ments. To-day he is in his Mount Sinai mood. For us, we g'o 
 with the bulk of the Bishops. Of course we know that as soon 
 as Dr. O'Dwyer puts on his feathers and takes tomahawk and 
 scalping" knife in hand, coming- out on the political warpath, he 
 will announce that he would not "go to Heaven '" with that 
 crowd. If he goes on as he is going he shall have to get a 
 separate compartment even there. There is a story told of a 
 man who was afflicted with a worrying wife, and who begged 
 her one day to allow the Almighty to have something to do with 
 the government of his own world. We pray Dr. O'Dwyer to 
 imitate that good man by allowing the Almighty to have some- 
 thing to do with the government of His own Church. 
 
 And now to come down to the prosaic details of the Glenshar - 
 rold Estate. The Bishop tells a tale, without names, with a 
 sinister malignity which he knows will score across the Channel, 
 and evoke such another article in the organ of the forger, per- 
 jurer, and suicide Pigott as that in which yesterday he is described 
 by the Times as the one Prelate " who is standing unsupported 
 in his own country as the champion of the Vatican." But if 
 Mr. Dillon has wrought such miseries on Glensharrold homes is 
 it not curious that when the honourable gentleman visited the 
 place yesterday he was received with open arms, was greeted 
 with a popular ovation, presented with an address, and that at a 
 large public meeting the following resolution was adopted with 
 every manifestation of the most cordial and genuine unanimity — 
 
 " That we, the tenants of the Glensharrold estate, having adopted the 
 Plan of Campaign to resist the cruel and tyrannous treatment of our 
 landlord, Mr. Delmege, hereby reiterate our determination to stand and 
 adhere to our combination until victory crowns our cause." 
 
 The Irish members have no rewards and no honours to ofifer 
 these poor people. Will the Bishop, who claims to be their 
 benefactor, please explain how it is that he is received in frigid 
 silence, and that John Dillon, who, according to his Lordship, 
 has ruined them, is received with warm and unfeigned welcome.'' 
 But we are glad to note by our report that John Dillon has not 
 ruined them, and that, instead of the miserable hovels fit for pigs 
 in which they are under notice of eviction, they have now provided 
 for them substantial and comfortable stone cottages fit for men 
 and women to live and thrive in. The truth is that, as 
 Mr. O'Brien recounted on Sunday, the tenants on the Glenshar- 
 rold estate had a cause so absolutely just that the Bishop him- 
 self was obliged through his Vicar-General to exempt them from 
 the operation of Monsignor Persico's mission. According to 
 Mr, O'Brien, in the only case in the diocese where the Plan of 
 
 G 1 [518 
 
34 
 
 Campaig-n was in force, the Bishop was obligfed to admit that 
 Monsignor Persico was absolutely wrong and that the Plan 
 of Campaign was absolutely right. The Bishop saw he was in 
 a dilemma, and he tried to get out of it by patching u]) an 
 agreement of his own and forcing the tenants to adopt it. He 
 went down unauthorised and uninvited, and he tried to intimidate 
 the tenantry into accepting his agreement by telling them that their 
 leaders would desert them and leave them to starve. He tried 
 even to purchase their assent by offering to subscribe the sum of 
 £iOO to the sum they were to pay for their miserable rack-rents, 
 and he did all that man could do openly and secretly to drag these 
 tenants into an agreement which was condemned by his own 
 valuer, Mr. Greene-Barry, and then what followed.' He failed, 
 as he invariably does. The people stuck to their leaders 
 They stuck to their rights, and what happened ? Because these 
 people, whose cause was so just that they were exempted fronri 
 the strictures of the Rescript, these people who were so poor 
 that he felt obliged to subscribe £iooto eke out their rack-rents, 
 because these miserable, these wronged people refused to be led 
 by him into an agreement condemned by his own valuer, the 
 Bishop came out in the Tivies newspaper on the mornings of the 
 eviction campaign with a letter which was directly calculated 
 to rob the Glensharrold tenantry of that English sympathy which 
 he knew was their only safety and only protection against 
 the blows of the exterminator. We now leave the Bishop to 
 his own reflections. They cannot be very happy ones. His 
 own people have struck against him as an incorrigible crank. 
 He stands isolated amongst his Episcopal brethren. He has pro- 
 voked the scandal of a vast public demonstration against him 
 in his own Catholic and Cathedral City. He is covered with the 
 compliments of the Coercion Press of England. He is the Irish 
 Bishop of Beauvais, who handed over the deliverer of his people 
 to the enemy, and consented to the burning of that deliverer at the 
 stake in the name of religion. That deliverer is now honoured by 
 Rome as well as by France. We respectfully called on his Lord- 
 ship yesterday to prove his claim to patriotism by projecting a 
 practical plan by which to win for Ireland the rights which are hers, 
 or, if he could not, to fall into line with his brother Bishops and 
 his people. His answer virtually is that he would not budge an 
 inch from his present proud and straitlaced isolation if his moving" 
 would re-open the Irish Parliament in College-green to-morrow. 
 Be it so. There is no more to be said. Let him be. We part 
 from the Bishop with one kindly word. We are grateful and 
 glad that his better nature has triumphed, and that he has the 
 courage — no one denies him that quality, pity 'twere not for 
 Ireland- to acknowledge that he has been unjust and v/rong. 
 5l4] 
 
35 
 
 I never meant," he writes, "to impute personal dishonesty to 
 Mr. Dillon. " We hope and trust that this ray of light may 
 spread into a broad gleam of generous sunshine on the Bishop's 
 heart and head, and that as his Lordship to-day regrets having 
 been betrayed into hasty mis-judgments and e.xpressions unworthy 
 of him, so he shall be yet, if tardily, found on his people's side, 
 this unpleasant episode of his life buried in oblivion. 
 
 Mr. Dillon went to Clonmel, a town outside the 
 Limerick Diocese, and there, upon the 26th August, 
 he delivered himself of the following speech, which is 
 probably a still more remarkable and important one 
 than that which he made at Limerick on the 24th. It 
 will amply repay careful perusal. 
 
 Mr. John Dillon : I had hoped, and I had expected the 
 meeting at Limerick the other day would have closed what to all 
 Irish Catholics was a painful controversy. Painful it was, and 
 humiliating, but, as I claim, humiliating not to us (cheers). We 
 did not seek this controversy ; it was forced upon us ; and 
 although I shall yield to no one in my respect for the ministers 
 of my religion, and for the bishops of my church (cheers), I say 
 here that, no matter what the consequence may be, that when a 
 Catholic bishop comes out into the arena of politics and attacks 
 with persistence, and in the most dangerous way, the great 
 movement on which the homes and the very existence of our 
 people are at stake, then if he were ten times a bishop I shall 
 resist him (cheers). And while I shall make every effort to 
 speak of the bishop with the respect due to his office, I shall treat 
 his politics as if he were a Catholic layman ; and I maintain, and 
 I am prepared to prove, that in following that course I am 
 treading in the steps of the most illustrious names that have ever 
 shed honour on the Catholic laity of this country (applause). I 
 am treading in the steps of O'Connell (applause), and I sincerely 
 and deeply regret that by a publication of the most extraordinary 
 character — as I think I shall prove — which appears in to-day's 
 Frcematis Journal, the Bishop of Limerick has made it incumbent 
 upon me to pursue this controversy somewhat further. In this 
 morning's Freeman s Journal there appears a letter from his lord- 
 ship, attacking not only myself but the Freema?t' s J ournal also. 
 What does his lordship do^ He begins, or rather ends, his 
 letter by stating that he thinks it right to say that " I never meant 
 to impute personal dishonesty to Mr. Dillon.'' Then I do not 
 know what the meaning of language is, nor does anyone else in 
 Ireland, because if ever personal dishonesty of the basest kind 
 
 [515 
 
36 
 
 was imputed to a man it was imputed to me (applause;. But his 
 lordship appears to be rather too late. After the meeting- at 
 Limerick takes place, he states that he does not impute- 
 motives of personal dishonesty to me, and never did. But what 
 does he do then .' He seeks in a letter extending- to nearly two 
 columns to shift his ground, and having- absolved me from the 
 charge of personal dishonesty, he now says that I am a liar (oh), 
 and in the following' way : — He says that the main subject of con- 
 troversy between himself and myself has been ignored both by 
 the Freeman s Journal and the speakers at the Limerick meeting. 
 And what is the main subject of controversy now according to the 
 bishop? — that I had assailed the Sovereign Pontiff in foul and 
 offensive language, and he says the language was so bad and 
 indefensible " that Mr. Dillon had the hardihood to deny that he 
 ever spoke a whole sentence in which the poison was centred."' 
 Well, 1 did deny it, and the Bishop of Limerick having absolved! 
 me of personal dishonesty, now practically calls me a liar, 
 because, he says, I did insult the Sovereign Pontiff. The morning' 
 after the speech was delivered I wrote to the papers to say that 
 the whole of my speech was directed — as the context proves — to 
 the action of the Tory Government in carrying on a base intrigue 
 with Rome, and that I had not uttered one word in disrespect of 
 the .Sovereign Pontiff, and I went further and I said this — that if 
 any language of mine uttered in the heat of debate in the House 
 of Commons is open to such construction I now state that no such 
 meaning ever entered into my mind, and that my language was 
 entirely addressed to the action of Lord Salisbury and Mr. 
 Balfour (applause). 
 
 Rev. Dean Mahony, Sydney : 1 heard it, Mr. Dillon ; you 
 are perfectly correct. 
 
 Mr. Dillon — I am very much obliged. An unexpected 
 confirmation, for which I am most grateful, has come from one 
 whom I will call a warm personal friend of my own — one of the 
 most respected and venerated priests in Australia (applause; — 
 who was sitting under the gallery in the House of Commons and 
 listening to my speech. I ask you what other meaning- could be 
 attached to it? (Hear, hear.) The context of the speech proves 
 what was in my mind. In order to avoid the possibility of a 
 public scandal, I went so far as to say that if anything had 
 escaped from my lips which could l)e twisted into the meaning of 
 the charge Bishop O'Dwyer speaks of I stated no such meaning- 
 entered into my mind, but that what I stated was directed at the 
 intrigues of English agents in Rome ; and I do, and I shall, 
 denounce the intrigues which are going on at this hour, which 
 are fraught witli infinite danger to the Catholic religion of this- 
 country, and which I say it is the duty of priests and Catholic 
 516] 
 
:37 
 
 3aymen alike in this country to guard against and watch 
 (applause). Bishop ODwyer has plainly stated as the basis on 
 which this letter was written that I falsely stated to the people of 
 this country that I made no assault upon the Sovereign Pontiff. 
 I leave it to the judgment of the Irish people whether I did not 
 ■do all I could to remove the possibility of misconception arising 
 'On this most important point (hear, hear). I ask your special 
 attention to this portion of his letter. I affirm, and I do so in 
 cool blood, I am prepared to defend the proposition, that no more 
 outrageous insult has ever been levelled against the whole 
 Catholic episcopacy in Ireland and the priests, not to speak of the 
 laity, than is contained in this letter of Dr. O'Dwyer. He says 
 that " for the future the sacred person of the Vicar of Christ will 
 <be held above all attacks. That alone is something gained." 
 Nobody said a word disrespectful of him as a bishop. I never 
 •did (applause). It is not my business to criticise him. The 
 ibishop goes on to state — "That alone is something gained; and 
 although jou may think very lov/ly of me as a bishop, I assure 
 you in all honesty that I regard it as a result worth all the 
 annoyance of achieving it." What does that mean ? It means 
 that I, speaking as the representative of a Catholic Irish con- 
 stituency, assailed in the British House of Commons the Sovereign 
 Pontiff, the Head of our Church, and that there was not found in 
 Ireland one bishop, archbishop, or priest to defend the 
 person of the Pope against my assault except Bishop O'Dwyer. 
 In that letter is contained the charge that Dr. Croke (applause) 
 the Archbishop of Dublin (applause), the Archbishops of Tuam 
 and Armagh, stood silently by while I insulted the Pope, and 
 never uttered a word in condemnation of the insult; that the 
 .Sovereign Pontiff had no champion in the whole of Ireland 
 except Dr. O'Dwyer. I would feel a more bitter depth of 
 humiliation than any Irish Catholic has ever been subjected to if 
 the Sovereign Pontiff, the Head of our Church, had to look to 
 Dr. O'Dwyer alone — a man of so little influence amongst his 
 people — that he and the Delmeges were the only defenders and 
 the only champions of the Pope. I say that in all the cruel his- 
 tory of insults and outrages levelled against the Church and the 
 prelates of the Church, no more cruel insult was ever levelled 
 against them than that the bishops stood silently by while the 
 Head of the Church was assailed with opprobrium and insult. 
 The bishop then goes on to illustrate what he objects to. He says 
 that the legend planted prominently on a banner in the proces- 
 sion at Limerick was — " Our religion from Rome, our politics 
 from home."' I adopt these words (loud cheers) : and I say they 
 ought to be the words of every Catholic in this country, be he 
 bishop, priest, or layman. I say it will be an evil day for the 
 
 r5i7 
 
38 
 
 Catholic relig-ion in this country, and an evil day for the Irish 
 race, when the bishops of Ireland find fault with such words as 
 those (cheers). He also says that that principle was the basis ot 
 all the speeches made at Limerick, and " Mr. O'Brien's scandalous 
 speech at Manchester." " May I ask these g-entlemen," he writes, 
 " what they mean by religion from Rome, and politics from home ? " 
 I answer the bishop by saying that what we mean is what 
 O'Connell meant when he used precisely the same expression 
 (cheers). Let me point out, too, that while O'Connell was 
 fighting the great and hard battle which had been the charter 
 ot the liberty of the Irish Church — I mean the battle against the 
 veto, which has preserved the Catholic Church in Ireland from 
 many of the misfortunes which have overtaken it in Continental 
 countries — he was denounced by Catholic bishops just as I am 
 (cheers). There was a much stronger reason for denouncing 
 O'Connell. And why } Because this policy of ours is not a 
 question at all of Church discipline. We are merely asserting 
 the right of the Irish representatives to carry on the political 
 movement perfectly free from outside control (cheers). But 
 O'Connell used these words, for which we are denounced because 
 they appeared on a banner in a procession in which we took 
 part, in reference to a question of Church discipline, in which he 
 considered the liberties of the Irish Church were at stake, and 
 therefore his words were much stronger. There is one other 
 point in reference to this very valuable letter. He says no 
 man in Ireland has more reverence for Dr. Croke and Dr, 
 Walsh than he has. I don't think he has adopted a very wise 
 way of showing it. He has endeavoured, so far as he could, 
 to put them in a very cruel position. He has held them up before 
 the people of Ireland as tacit assentors to insult levelled against 
 the Holy See. In my humble judgment it would have been wiser 
 for his own sake, and certainly he would have spared much pain 
 in this Catholic country, had he left those who are his seniors- 
 in the Irish Church, who were bishops long Ijefore his name was 
 heard of, and who are the leaders of the Irish Church, to defend 
 the Holy See if the Holy See needed defence (hear, hear). I 
 can only say that the day will never arise when the Holy See 
 needs defence in Catholic Ireland (cheers). While we are 
 determined to show to the world that we are independent in our 
 politics, that we will not consent to have our political concerns 
 made the subject of I^^nglish intrigues cither here in Ireland or 
 any other part of the world, we, the Catholic laymen of Ireland, 
 have proved in other ways and by greater sacrifice than is 
 contained in the expenditure of printer's ink, that we are faithful 
 to the Head of our Church (loud cheers). We have been faithful 
 to the Church when it meant death and ruin in the past ; we shall 
 518] 
 
39 
 
 be faithful to the Church in the future ; and I venture to say those 
 of us who are strong" Irish Cathohcs will be found, if ever a time 
 of trial arises, as faithful as those that Dr. O'Dwyer calls " his 
 crowd" (renewed cheers). Now, I have just a word or two to 
 say. I don't like to detain this meeting- too long- (cries of "No, 
 no," and "Go on.") But the matter is of such very g-reat 
 importance that I must say a few words on the history of the 
 strug-gle on the Glensharrold estate, because a portion of his 
 lordship's letter is devoted to that question, and would give to 
 the public a most utterly false idea of the history of the strugg-le 
 upon that estate. He says that we continued this strug-gle rather 
 than accept a reduction of thirty-five per cent., and that the whole 
 difference upon the estate between what we were going- for and 
 what the court was willing to offer was only £25. Now, what has 
 been the history of the estate ? Glensharrold is one of the 
 poorest and most rack-rented estates in the West of Ireland ; 
 and from all I can gather there never was a body of tenants in 
 this unfortunate part of the country subjected to greater robbery 
 and persecution than were the tenantry on the Glensharrold 
 estate. Now, no relief came to the Glensharrold tenants until we 
 adopted the Plan of Campaign on the estate (applause). Up to 
 that they had been harassed in every way that is known to the 
 law for harassing Irish tenants, and when we had fought with the 
 Plan of Campaign for two years on that estate, making sacrifices 
 — some men going to jail — and considerable money being spent in 
 maintaining the light, the Bishop of Limerick, as he admits 
 himself, for the purpose of getting the people out of their criminal 
 combination, goes down to the estate and enters as negotiator 
 between landlord and tenants behind our backs, and without 
 consulting us at all. What was the result ? Undoubtedly the 
 landlord, anxious to secure the co-operation of Dr, O'Dwyer — 
 the powerful co-operation of the bishop of the diocese — in bringing 
 his tenants to a settlement, offered them terms which he never 
 would have offered only for the Plan of Campaign (applause). 
 The Bishop of Limerick sent down to the estate a valuer of the 
 name of Mr, Barry, a gentleman who is looked upon all over 
 Limerick as a landlord's valuer, and one whom the tenants would 
 not think of employing. He goes over the estate as a friend of 
 the bishop and the landlord's valuer, and he comes back with the 
 report that the reduction which should be given was 40 per cent., 
 the very reduction we had demanded from them (applause). 
 Now what does the bishop do .' He puts into his pocket and 
 attempts to suppress the report of his own valuer which fully bore 
 out our case, and recollect he is not the tenants' valuer, the 
 probability being if we had a fair valuer he would have reported 
 60 or 70 per cent,— because it is perfectly valueless land, which I 
 
 [519 
 
40 
 
 had ?»n oppurtunity of seeing- yesterday for myself — he puts it into 
 his pockets and suppresses it ; and from that hour to this we have 
 never been able to get him to pubHsh it. He then announces if 
 the tenants will leave us and cease to be guided by our advice, and 
 place their case in his hands, they will have a reduction of thirty- 
 five per cent, and other concessions. That is to say, if the tenants 
 give in and sacrifice the cause, sacrifice the men and policy by 
 which they have obtained any concession and have been saved 
 from ruin, and inflict to the best of their ability an injury to the 
 cause of the tenants and us — and I say our prestige and power 
 in Ireland is indissolubly bound up with the fortunes of the Irish 
 tenants — he makes it a condition of their getting thirty per cent., 
 that they break the combination, that they should publicly 
 insult us by withdrawing from the Plan of Campaign, that 
 he might triumph over us. Very well, that was the state 
 of affairs when the case came before us. A gentleman 
 came to our office in Dublin and stated he made this offer. 
 Our reply was, " We will not counsel the tenants to drop their 
 demand of 40 per cent, unless we have an assurance that if they 
 do they shall get satisfaction."' Remember the Bishop of 
 Limerick's proposition was first that they should throw us over, 
 and then that he would intercede to get them a reduction of 
 30 per cent. We said we would consent if a distinct assurance 
 was conveyed to us that the 35 per cent, would be given to 
 counsel the tenants to settle, therefore I don't think we were 
 justified in doing more, as it was a great deal too little considering 
 the circumstances of the estate, and that the priests were pre- 
 vented from giving the people any assistance, and every effort 
 was made to break up the combination and ruin the tenants. The 
 reply we got was that the evictions were carried out. I ask you 
 on whose head does the responsibility lie of carrying- out these 
 evictions for a difference of £25 ? Is it on our head (no) or on 
 the head of the bishop and his allies .? (Yes). They carried out 
 these evictions without allowing the people to get the 35 percent., 
 without making- a surrender of the Plan of Campaign ; therefore 
 it is idle to talk about this difference of £25 being the only differ- 
 ence. .So difficult were matters to be carried on, on account of 
 the fact that the priests of the diocese were forbidden to speak to 
 the unfortunate tenants, and partly from the fact that the tenants 
 were so accustomed to oppression that they required a great deal 
 of encouragement to urge them to keep up the battle, still with 
 these and all other considerations in my mind I was anxious to 
 settle the fight on the estate, but the terms offered did not in my 
 judgment give a fair share of justice to the tenants. We could 
 not consent to accept what was offered. We were justified in 
 demanding, as we had spent a lot of money on the estate — we 
 620] 
 
41 
 
 -were justified in compelling- Mr. Delmeg-e not only to place these 
 tenants in a reasonable way to earn a living", but also to repay 
 out of his rents some of the national funds we had been oblig^ed 
 to expend (applause). His lordship says, "Before I published 
 my letter on the case I held my episcopal visitation in the parish. 
 One of the tenants came to me by night with a list of the names 
 of his fellow tenants who were ready to pay their rents, to go by 
 my advice. I told him that in my opinion they would make a 
 great mistake if they abandoned their holdings, and that they 
 ought to pay._ What do you think was the question he then 
 asked ? ' If we pay will you protect us .? ' " I think I have heard 
 that before from police inspectors, and from land agents in the 
 witness box in London, and it is perfectly true that on every poor 
 •estate in Ireland there are to be found men who either through 
 cowardice Or dishonesty are anxious to break away from the 
 combination of their fellowmen. But recollect they are bribed 
 to terms which never would have been offered to them but for 
 that combination and the sacrifices of others, and I think it 
 ill-becomes the Catholic Bishop of the diocese to lend himself to 
 such proceedings (applause). I for one never sought for a 
 moment to conceal or deny the fact that I am ready, and have 
 always been ready, and have always warned the tenants to put 
 such pressure as I often preach to the people of Ireland on any 
 man who, having joined his fellowmen voluntarily in a combina- 
 tion for the assertion of their right and the salvation of their 
 homes, seeks to make terms for himself outside that combination 
 (hear, hear). Of course, there are dishonest sneaks on every 
 estate in Ireland, and it is unfortunate that when things of this 
 character do occur that they should be published to the world for 
 the object of blackening our combination and robbing us of 
 public sympathy by a Catholic bishop. That movement, I 
 believe, in spite of all that is said in this letter, and of all the 
 charges levelled against us from different quarters, is a movement 
 based on justice, and on one of the highest principles which can 
 combine together mankind — that is, on mutual loyalty (applause). 
 It is a movement which, in my humble judgment, has done more to 
 elevate the scicial condition and politically to emancipate the 
 people of Ireland in ten years than all the gallant sacrifices of the 
 previous hundred years (applause). It is a movement which, in 
 my judgment, also has taught the people of Ireland more of 
 mutual confidence and more of self-reliance than any movement 
 that has gone before it, and in spite of these denunciations and in 
 spite of these charges, so long as I retain the confidence of an 
 Irish constituency, so long shall I continue to preach these prin- 
 ciples to the people of Ireland, until the accursed load of land- 
 lordism and foreign-made laws is rolled from off the necks of our 
 
 [521 
 
42 
 
 people. And this I will only say in conclusion, that I repeat once 
 more the challenge which his lordship in his letter to-day refuses 
 to meet. If he has fault to find with our methods and our policy 
 let him propose better methods (applause). I should be 
 
 ashamed to take part with a people who, 
 having seen the goal and the aim of their 
 agitation almost realised, should suddenly 
 be conscience-striken in using boycotting 
 against Irish landlordism (applause). When did 
 
 his lordship, or any man of his stamp, ever find an occasion to 
 denounce the exterminators of the people of Ireland ? (Applause). 
 They were silent when Delmege was robbing the Glensharrold 
 tenants, but their consciences prick them when the Glensharrold 
 tenantry try to boycott Delmege (hear). Well, I believe the 
 conscience of the Irish people is pure in this matter (applause), 
 I believe the Irish people will continue this policy as long as the 
 necessity arises (applause). It is a blessing to the people of 
 Ireland, and it Avill be their salvation (renewed applause), and in 
 spite of the condemnation of Bishop O'Dwyer I believe they will 
 continue to use that weapon until they bring to pass the cornplete 
 emancipation of their race (prolonged applause). 
 
 The reader will have doubtless noted that Messrs. 
 O'Brien and Dillon, followed by the Freeman s Jonrnalr 
 laid g-reat stress upon the allegation that the Bishop of 
 Limerick in his dealings with the Glensharrold tenantry 
 had repudiated the opinion of his own valuer [a 
 gentleman named Mr. Greene-Barry]. This attack,, 
 however, signally failed, as the following telegram, sent 
 by Mr. Greene- Barry to the FreeMia?is Joitrnal and 
 published by that paper on the 27th August, will show. 
 Incidentally, too, this telegram will also afford the 
 reader a measure by which he can estimate the value 
 of Parnellite utterances of a like nature. Mr. Greene- 
 Barry telegraphed : — 
 
 To THE Editor of thk "Freeman." 
 
 Statement in your leader this day that I condemned the settle- 
 ment proposed by Dr. O'Dwyer in Glensharrold dispute is not 
 the fact. On the contrary, I thought the Bishop's proposal just 
 and equitable, and think, so still. James Grekne-Barry. 
 
 622] 
 
43 
 
 The Freeman of the 27th August has some remarks 
 upon Mr. Dillon's speech at Clonmel and upon the 
 situation which deserve attention. 
 
 In matter and in manner Mr. Dillon's speech is a model of 
 cog"ent, calm, modest, and rational reply to the Bishop of 
 Limerick. ... Of Bishop O'Dwyer we can only speak in 
 sorrow — certainly not in ang'er. The great and holy Prelates to- 
 whom Mr. Dillon alludes hold their commissions from exactly 
 the same exalted source as that upon which he dilated with so 
 much agg"ressiveness in his letter. They are Mr. Dillon's friends. 
 They are our friends, we are proud to say, and never shall that 
 trust and friendship, we trust, be forfeited. They are above all 
 the people's friends and the foes ofthe people's foes. The Bishop 
 of Limerick might well reflect upon the company in which he is 
 found in this controversy. 
 
 The scandal was now complete. A Bishop had 
 taken upon himself the painful but conscientious duty 
 of teaching his people morality. He had been 
 denounced by the professional patriots in no measured 
 language for his legitimate action. He had suggested 
 to these '' patriots " that If they thought him wrong in 
 his theology, they could satisfy themselves upon this 
 point by an appeal to Cardinal Manning in London, 
 or to any Catholic Bishop In Ireland. The answer he 
 got to this request was characteristic to men who are 
 in the wrong, and who know they are In the wrongs 
 They heaped insult upon him, they assailed his sacred 
 office, and they attempted to defeat his efforts to do 
 what he believed to be his duty to his Diocese. 
 Furthermore, both '' patriots " and " patriotic " press 
 loudly declared that Dr. O'Dwyer was alone, and that 
 the rest or great bulk ofthe Irish Bishops approved of 
 their action. The moment was, doubtless, a critical 
 one, and hitherto no colleague of the Bishop of 
 Limerick had opened his lips ; on the 27th August, 
 however, the Archbishop of Dublin broke the silence. 
 He wrote a letter to the Freeman s Jo7ir)ial \n\\\q\\ was- 
 published on the 28th. This letter has given rise to 
 
 [523- 
 
44 
 
 ■considerable criticism, and should be read with care. 
 It is as follows : — 
 
 To THE Editor of the " Freeman." 
 
 " Dear Sir, — I feel that the good sense of the Catholics of 
 Ireland, whether laj'men or ecclesiastics, will bear me out in my 
 view that I am called upon to make a very earnest protest against 
 the use that has been made of my name in the course of the angry 
 dispute now ranging in the south of Ireland. 
 
 '• The matter of which I have to complain being of the most 
 .public occurrence, I feel that my protest also should be publicly 
 made. 
 
 " I shall probably be absent from Ireland for the next few 
 weeks. In my absence I shall not have a fair chance of speaking 
 out for myself, as I should undoubtedly feel called upon to 
 do, if this novel species of public controversy, involving the use 
 of my name as a weapon whether of attack or defence, were to 
 g"0 on much longer. I trust, then, that if this unhajipy wrangle is 
 to be continued, those directly concerned in it will sec the pro- 
 priety of paying what respect they can to my now publicly 
 expressed protest against the dragging of my name into a dispute 
 with which, in any of its aspects — political, personal, or otherwise 
 controversial — I have nothing whatever to do. 
 
 " I remain, dear sir, most faithfully yours, 
 •• William J. Walsh, 
 
 " Archbishop of Dublin." 
 
 The Archbishop was reported in the same paper to 
 have left Ireland on the 2/th, his destination was not 
 announced. 
 
 This pamphlet is concluded by recording one other 
 event, which happened eight days after the Limerick 
 scandal, and which is published in the Frcauans 
 Jourfial of the 2nd September. It is given without 
 comment. 
 
 This afternoon (Monday, ist September) Mr. John Dillon 
 M.P., and Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., arrived at Thurles to visit 
 the Archbishop of Cashel, who invited them to spend a few days 
 with them prior to their departure for America. The visit was 
 intended to be of a private character, but the irrepressible people 
 of Tipperary no sooner heard of it than they had a magnificent 
 •demonstration to greet them. The party left Dublin by the one 
 -•i24] 
 
46 
 
 o'clock train, and at various stations along^ the route where they 
 were recog-nised they were cheered. Upon the arrival of the 
 train at Thurles an enormous crowd had assembled on the plat- 
 form. Amongst those present were Rev. N. Rafferty, Adm., and 
 some eight other priests. A telegram was received from Mr. 
 Thomas Condon, M.P., stating- that he was unable to attend. 
 
 The Rev. Mr. Rafferty, Adm., who was moved to the 
 chair, said he felt he could dispense on this occasion with the 
 usual formality of introducing- the gentlemen they had come to 
 welcome and honour (cheers). There were no two living Irish- 
 men of our time better known and more loved and more trusted 
 by the whole Irish race for unflinching and chivalrous advocacy 
 of the cause of Irish nationality than John Dillon and William 
 O'Brien, and no two living Irishmen more feared by their oppo- 
 nents (cheers). The present visit of Mr. Dillon and Mr. O'Brien 
 to the Archbishop was one of a purely friendly and private 
 character, but he vv^as thankful to see the spontaneous and extra- 
 ordinar}' demonstration of welcome that awaited them at the 
 hands of the assembled thousands he saw around him (cheers), 
 who evidently were unwilling or unable to repress their feelings 
 of affection and enthusiasm for the most cherished and devoted 
 advocates of the Irish cause (cheers). 
 
 Mr. William O'Brien, M.P., who was received with loud 
 cheers, said — Fellow countrymen, you are aware that we are 
 here as the g-uests of your illustrious Archbishop, Dr. Croke 
 (cheers). 
 
 Mr. John Dillon. M.P., who was received with cheers, 
 said — Men of Tipperary, I am proud to be here once more in 
 the old Town of Thurles, where I often stood during- the course 
 of the last ten years. I am prouder still to be here as the guest 
 of his Grace the Archbishop of Cashel (cheers). 
 
 Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Dillon then proceeded to the Arch- 
 bishop's palace, where they were received by his Grace. 
 
 r525 
 
526] 
 
 7806 035 
 

 DATE DUE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 UNIVERSITY PRODUCTS, INC. #859-5503 
 
 FEB ^"^ 1984 
 
 IOC ^ 
 
 CHA.Xw; 
 
BOSTON COLLEGE 
 
 3 9031 027 98262 8